Loading...
PC 2019/02/04 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, February 4, 2019 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairperson: Jess Carbajal • Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Gillespie • Commissioners: John Armstrong, Bill Dalati, Kimberly Keys, Michelle Lieberman, Steve White • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, January 31, 2019, 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 02-04-2019 Page 2 of 5 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 02-04-2019 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992* (DEV2018-00139) Location: 3711 East La Palma Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to permit a new auto dealership with a retail showroom within an existing commercial building, auto repair, and outdoor storage; and (ii) a variance to permit less parking than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). *Variance No. 2018-05116 was deleted subsequent to noticing and posting for this item. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Lucita Tong LTong@anaheim.net 02-04-2019 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05980 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 (DEV2017-00124) Location: Terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) amend the General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential; (ii) a Zoning Reclassification from the I (Industrial) zone to the RM-3.5 (Multiple- Family Residential) zone; (iii) a conditional use permit to permit the construction of 39 attached single-family residential units with modified development standards; and (iv) a tentative tract map to establish a 1-lot, 39-unit condominium subdivision. 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. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net Adjourn to Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. 02-04-2019 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 1:30 p.m. January 30, 2019 (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: FEBRUARY 4, 2019 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 LOCATION: 3711 East La Palma Avenue (Blackstar Offroad) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Blackstar Offroad, represented by Michael Shuster. The property owners are Kenneth and Tina Thurm. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a new auto dealership with a retail showroom within an existing commercial building, auto repair, and outdoor storage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-05992. BACKGROUND: The 0.53-acre property is currently developed with a vacant industrial building totaling 11,808 square feet. The property is located in the “SP-2015-1” Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Development Area 1 (Industrial Area) zone. The General Plan designates the property for Industrial land uses. The surrounding land uses include a wholesale food business (Hunter Foods) to the north and west, a service station to the east, and a commercial shopping center to the south, across La Palma Avenue. A family-owned business since 1981, Blackstar Offroad is a specialized car dealership focusing on custom-built Jeep Wranglers. The business is currently located in Fullerton and is looking to relocate. Its Fullerton location has a major auto repair component which will not be part of the business in Anaheim. The business sells predominantly newer cars from 2016 and onward, with prices ranging from $40,000 to $60,000. The company sold approximately 139 cars in 2018, which averages about 10-12 custom built Jeep Wranglers per month. They currently have five full-time employees and no new employees will be hired at the new business location. Project Site CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 February 4, 2019 Page 2 of 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to permit and retain a new 2,324 square foot indoor automotive sales showroom, a 8,559 square foot warehouse for minor automotive repair, and 480 square feet of outdoor storage. The automotive repair business would operate Monday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The business is considered a low-volume auto dealership, with an average of approximately two to three customers per day by appointment only. Occasionally, there may be walk-in customers. Vehicle access to the property is from La Palma Avenue. There is a total of 21 spaces required by the Municipal Code based on the proposed land uses. The applicant is proposing one new parking space between the two roll up garage doors of the warehouse. The remaining 20 spaces include eight spaces in front of the building, six spaces behind the fence, and six indoor parking spaces at the rear of the warehouse. Two hydraulic car lifts would be located at the rear of the existing 11,808 square foot tenant space. According to the applicant’s Letter of Request (Attachment 2), the type of auto repair consists of installing accessories such as a suspension lift kit, aftermarket bumpers and lighting. There would be no painting of vehicles proposed on-site, nor any kind of oil change or smog check services. The applicant intends to park most of their cars indoors for safety, but would like the option of storing a few cars outside for overflow if the business expands in the future. The applicant does not intend to store parts outside in the outdoor storage area. The applicant proposes to use five of the parking spaces for automotive display. These vehicles would have no price signs, numbers, window writing, balloons or attached flags of any kind to draw attention to the cars. Those who are passionate about Jeep products would likely take notice of the custom upgrades of these vehicles. During non-business hours, all vehicles would be stored within the building and behind the gated area. 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; New Parking Display cars Outdoor Storage CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 February 4, 2019 Page 3 of 4 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The Municipal Code requires approval of a conditional use permit for “Outdoor Storage, Retail Showroom, and Automotive-Repair & Modification” uses within the Industrial zone to ensure that the uses are appropriate for the site, compatible with surrounding land uses, and in compliance with Municipal Code requirements. The outdoor storage would be concealed by an existing wrought iron fence with 10 foot high Cypress trees in front of the fence. This would screen any outdoor storage of parked vehicles from the public right-of- way. The business would not be utilizing multiple-car flatbed trucks to transport cars to the property. The cars would be individually driven or loaded by a single flatbed truck. Most cars are purchased from Manheim Auto Auction, located at 1320 North Tustin Avenue in Anaheim. All cars would be loaded or unloaded completely on-site and staff included a condition of approval in the draft resolution that will not permit delivery trucks to unload or load cars along La Palma Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the applicant’s proposed Truck Delivery Plan (Attachment 4) and approved the plan. The 2,324 square foot retail showroom will be compatible with the surrounding land uses since it will not generate excessive traffic, nor have an impact on adjacent commercial and industrial uses. Even though it is a retail use, the business sells only specific types of Jeep cars that are highly specialized and will not attract a customer base that will generate excessive volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets. Staff requested that the applicant provide a parking study to evaluate their current demand at their business in Fullerton. The results of that study are included in Attachment 5. The results of that study show that customers and employees would utilize six on-site parking spaces at its busiest time of day. The business indicated that they would not be hiring additional employees, and would have sufficient staff to handle the change from major auto repair and sales to minor auto repair and sales business. The proposed showroom at the new business location is expected to generate two or three customers daily. Since the business only utilizes six parking spaces on a typical business day, staff believes that there will be ample space to accommodate the minor volume of customer visitation. Outdoor Storage behind trees CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 February 4, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Based upon the applicant’s parking study, the automotive repair and sales business will have sufficient parking spaces available and will not impose an undue burden on the adjacent industrial and commercial uses. The automotive showroom and repair facility will have only five employees. Customer vehicles will only be on-site when work is being conducted indoors, or stored at the rear of the property. The proposed uses will meet Municipal Code requirements for parking and based on their parking demand study, staff believes that the number of parking spaces on site is adequate to accommodate the proposed repair services, without impacting the surrounding public streets or properties. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and would not cause a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project meets these criteria. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The proposed retail showroom, automotive repair facility, and outdoor storage uses are compatible with the adjacent industrial and commercial uses because all repairs will be conducted inside the building and all outdoor storage will be concealed from public view. Additionally, staff believes that there is sufficient on-site parking for the proposed uses. Therefore, staff believes the request to permit the automotive showroom and repair facility and outdoor storage are suitable land uses for this location and recommends approval of the project, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Prepared by, Submitted by, Lucita Y. Tong David See Contract Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Draft CUP Resolution 2. Letter of Request 3. Site Plan 4. Truck Delivery Plan 5. Parking Study 6. Site Photographs SP 2015-1DEV 2018-00139RETAIL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1SERVICE STATION SP 2015-1DA1CANYON GATEPLAZA SP 2015-1DA1OFFICES SP 2015-1DA1CANYON GATEPLAZA SP 2015-1DA3OFFICES SP 2015-1DA3OFFICES SP 2015-1DA3PACIFICCENTER SP 2015-1DA3Retail SP 2015-1DA3Fast FoodRestaurant SP 2015-1DA3Fast Food Restaurant SP 2015-1DA3PACIFICCENTER SP 2015-1DA3Offices SP 2015-1DA1BUSINESS PARK R A I L R O A D SP 2015-1DA1GENERAL ELECTRICOFFICES SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL E LA PALMA AVE N T U S T I N A V E E LA PALMA AVE N T U S T I N A V E E EAG LE DR E MELVILLE WAY N L I N K N JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RD E . M I R A L O M A A V E N . T U S T I N A V E E.R I V E R D A L E A V E N . M I L L E R S T E .L A P A L MA AVE N . K R A E M E R B L V D E . L A P A L M A A V E 3 7 1 1 Ea st L a P a lm a Ave n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 13 9 Subject Property APN: 345-179-01345-173-17 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Pho to:May 20 16 E LA PALMA AVE N T U S T I N A V E E LA PALMA AVE N T U S T I N A V E E EAG LE DR E MELVILLE WAY N L I N K N JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RD E . M I R A L O M A A V E N . T U S T I N A V E E.R I V E R D A L E A V E N . M I L L E R S T E .L A P A L MA AVE N . K R A E M E R B L V D E . L A P A L M A A V E 3 7 1 1 Ea st L a P a lm a Ave n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 13 9 Subject Property APN: 345-179-01345-173-17 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Pho to:May 20 18 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2018-00139) (3711 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-05992 to permit an automotive retail showroom and repair facility with outdoor storage within an industrial building (the "Proposed Project") on a portion of that certain real property located at 3711 East La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.53 acres in size and is currently developed with a single-story industrial building. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for “I” Industrial land uses. The Property is located in the “SP-2015-1" Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Development Area 1 (Industrial Area), meaning that the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 Zoning and Development Standards) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 4, 2019 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. 2018-05992, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or minor expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and - 2 - PC2019-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the Proposed project and, specifically, with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-05992, does find and determine the following: 1. The proposed automotive retail showroom and repair facility with outdoor storage uses are allowable primary uses permitted with a conditional use permit within the "SP 2015-1" Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Zone, as authorized under Table 120-B of Section 18.120.040 (Uses) of Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code. 2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit a automotive retail showroom and repair facility with outdoor storage, 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 all repairs will occur within an existing industrial building, and all outdoor storage will be adequately screened from public view. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the automotive retail showroom and minor repair facility with outdoor storage in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facility will be located within an existing industrial building that provides a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces and vehicle circulation will be in accordance with the plans and materials submitted. 4. The traffic generated by the automotive retail showroom and repair facility with outdoor storage 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 and circulation 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 uses will continue to be integrated with the surrounding industrial and commercial uses in the area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. and; WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 3 - PC2019-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2018-05992, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2018- 05992 is applicable in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2019. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2019-*** 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 February 4, 2019 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2019-*** - 6 - PC2019-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018-05992 (DEV2018-00139) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 Outdoor storage or display of vehicles shall be permitted in the designated area per the approved site plan, and no outdoor auto body/repair work of any kind shall be conducted on the property. Planning and Building Department Cofe Enforcement Division 2 Overnight vehicle parking shall be limited to inside the building or within the fenced yard to the rear of the building only. Planning and Building Department Cofe Enforcement Division 3 All vehicles awaiting service shall be parked on-site; no adjacent or nearby public streets shall be utilized for any parking related to this business. Planning and Building Department Cofe Enforcement Division 4 All loading and unloading of vehicles shall follow the approved Truck Delivery Plan by the Public Works, Traffic Engineer which is made part of this approval. No loading and unloading of cars are permitted on La Palma Avenue. Planning and Building Department Cofe Enforcement Division 5 Display of cars shall be limited to the five spaces identified on the site plan. No other locations for display of cars shall be permitted. Planning and Building Department Cofe Enforcement Division 6 If the business can no longer accommodate six parking spaces within the warehouse, the applicant shall submit a revised parking and operations plan to the Planning Department to re- evaluate on-site parking needs to meet Municipal Code requirements. 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 Cofe Enforcement Division - 7 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 7 The owner shall install and maintain adequate landscaping to screen the outdoor storage from view of the public street. Prior to the establishment of the business, the owner shall replace the existing dead Cypress trees with new trees in accordance with this requirement. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 8 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 9 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 10 The business premises shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division Blackstar Offroad 3711 E. La Palma Ave Anaheim, CA 92806 November 12, 2018 Letter Of Request Blackstar Offroad is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for retail vehicle sales and service at an 11,808 sf free standing industrial building located at 3711 E. La Palma Avenue in the city of Anaheim. About Us - We have been family owned and operated since 1981. Our primary business is the sale of custom built Jeep Wranglers. Most of our vehicles are year model 2016 - 2019 with a sales price between $40,000.00 - $60,000.00 per vehicle. Vehicles are custom built using bolt on parts and accessories such as a suspension lift kit, aftermarket bumpers, wheels and lighting. Our vehicles are considered to be some of the nicest in our industry. We sell on average, 10 custom built Jeep Wranglers per month. The business is managed by Jeff Shuster and Tim Shuster. We have 3 full time employees. The owners (Michael and Elsa Shuster) do not participate in the day to day operation. They are absentee owners, allowing their two sons to operate and manage the business. Hours of Operation - Our business hours are from 9:00am - 6:00pm on Monday through Saturday. We are closed on Sundays and all major holidays. The only surrounding businesses are the 76 gas station which is open 24 hours a day and Hunter Foods which is open from 6:00am - 5:00pm. There is no residential near the building. Therefore our hours of operation will not impact the surrounding area. Traffic - Due to the higher price point of our vehicles, we cater to a specific high end client. Usually by appointment although one is not required. We sell approximately 10 vehicles a month with about 1 or 2 customers per day. Due to the low volume of customers, there will be no impact on traffic or the surrounding businesses. In addition, there are 2 driveway entrances on La Palma Avenue that would serve our business only. There is also a driveway connecting both entrances, allowing for easy entry and exit. Parking - There are 23 existing striped and designated parking spaces with one designated handicap space. We would like to use 5 of the parking spaces for vehicle display purposes and 3 of the parking spaces for outdoor storage. The remaining 15 parking spaces will far exceed our needs. We typically have 1 customer at a time with approximately 3 total customers over the course of a business day. This is due to our specialized product and the higher price point of our ATTACHMENT NO. 2 custom built Wranglers. We will also need 4 parking spaces for employees. No vehicles will be parked along La Palma Avenue as this is not allowed nor would it ever be necessary. Vehicle Display - We request 5 parking spaces to be used for automotive display purposes directly in front of the building and only on our property. These vehicles will have no visible prices, numbers, window writing, balloons or attached flags of any kind. To the average person passing by, there will be nothing out of the ordinary. However a person with a passion for Jeep products would take notice and the custom upgrades of these vehicles would give them an indication of what we offer as a business. No vehicles will be parked, stored or displayed on public streets at anytime. During non-business hours, all vehicles would be stored within the building and behind the gated area. Additionally, there will be no outside storage of parts. Similar uses - There are many examples of similar uses within an industrial building in the city of Anaheim. The closest would be Corvette Mike located about 50 yards away. Here are a few of them listed below. Corvette Mike 1133 N Tustin Ave Anaheim, CA 92807 DC Motors 4530 E la Palma Ave Anaheim, CA 92807 West Coast Corvette 1210 N Kraemer Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806 Coast Corvette 828 W Vermont Ave Anaheim, CA 92805 Transport - All vehicles are purchased from Manheim auto auctions. The nearest facility is Manheim California located at 1320 N. Tustin Avenue in the city of Anaheim. Most vehicles are purchased here and will be driven to our location. If a vehicle is purchased at a different Manheim auction, the vehicle will be transported to Manheim California and we will pick up and drive to our facility. If a vehicle requires a flatbed, the vehicle would be loaded or unloaded entirely on the premises in the designated loading area. There is sufficient space to do so and having two driveways would allow for this to be done easily. Business Growth - Over the last 12 months, we have averaged 10 sales per month. An increase to 12 or even 14 sales a month would be welcomed but would not require any changes to our business nor would additional parking be necessary. The additional 2-4 sales per month would not require us to hire another employee and the impact on customer parking would be minimal. We sell a niche product that costs $40,000.00 and up. Our profits per transaction are significant but we average only 2-3 sales per week. Therefore, future growth will have minimal impact on parking. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We appreciate the opportunity to do business within the city of Anaheim. Best Regards, Michael Shuster Blackstar Offroad (714) 319-4019 Blackstar Offroad 3711 E. La Palma Ave Anaheim, CA 92806 November 12, 2018 Justification Letter We are requesting a conditional use permit because it is required for retail vehicle sales and service in an industrial zone. Surrounding businesses would not be affected because we do not share a driveway with anybody else. Neither do we share parking spaces with any other business. In addition, we have more than enough parking spaces for our employees and customers. All business would take place during normal business hours and within the 11,808 SF building. We have only 5 employees, which is few considering the size of the building. There is a 76 gas station to our immediate East. They would benefit since we will be using their services. Corvette Mike is immediately North of us and operate under the same CUP that we are requesting. Due to the low volume of employees and customers, there will be no impact on traffic or the surrounding businesses. In addition, there are 2 driveway entrances on La Palma Avenue that would serve our business only. There is also a driveway connecting both entrances, allowing for easy entry and exit. We operate a clean and high end business and believe that we would be an asset to the people that live and work in the city of Anaheim. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We appreciate the opportunity to do business within the city of Anaheim. Best Regards, ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Attachment 4:  Blackstar Offroad Truck Delivery Plan  3711 E. La Palma Avenue  ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Parking Study: Blackstar Offroad Address: 147 W. Santa Fe Avenue, Fullerton, CA Maximum Spaces: 6 spaces ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Site Photos: Blackstar Offroad 3711 E. La Palma Avenue Southwest Elevation West Elevation North Elevation ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Parking Lot Interior Showroom Warehouse 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: FEBRUARY 4, 2019 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 LOCATION: This property is located at the easterly terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street (No address). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is 740 East La Palma, LLC, represented by Greg McCafferty of Sagecrest Planning and Development. The property owner is La Palma Family Limited Partnership, represented by Ilona Nanda. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following zoning entitlements: 1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential; 2) A Zoning Reclassification from the I (Industrial) zone to the RM-3.5 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone; 3) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 39-unit, attached single family residential project with modified development standards; 4) A Tentative Tract Map to permit a 1-lot, 39 unit subdivision for condominium purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolutions, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2018- 00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18182. BACKGROUND: This 1.57-acre property is located in the “I” Industrial zone and is developed with a paved RV storage lot with no permanent structures. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 2 of 8 The site is designated for Low Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding uses include RV storage to the north, single-family residences across a public alley to the west, outdoor storage yard to the south, and apartments across the railroad tracks to the east. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing RV storage lot and construct 39 attached, single-family residences using the RM 3.5 zone development standards. The units would be in seven, 3-story buildings with an approximate height of 37 feet. There would be a 3-plex building with front doors facing the northern property line near the North Street terminus, and six 6-plex buildings south of the 3-plex, all parallel to the existing alley terminating at Wilhelmina Street. Plans 1 and 2 would have two bedrooms with 2.5 baths, and would contain 1,270 to 1,509 square feet of living area, respectively. Plan 3 would have three bedrooms with an optional fourth bedroom with 3.5 baths. Each unit would be three levels with garages and a den (Plans 2 and 3) or office on the first level, an open kitchen/dining/living area and half-bath on the second level, and two or three bedrooms on the third level. Each unit would have a two-car garage, with Plan 1 featuring a tandem garage. A total of 78 garage spaces and 28 open guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 106 on-site parking spaces; two more than the minimum number of Code required spaces. The applicant would widen the public alley from 15 feet to its ultimate 20-foot width in accordance with City standards, and would provide a three-foot parkway and a four-foot sidewalk to provide pedestrian connectivity from North Street to Wilhelmina Street along the alley. The project would have seven driveways off the east side of the alley leading to guest parking and motor courts allowing access to garages. A 12-foot sound wall would be built adjacent to a northerly recreation area to provide required sound attenuation from the adjacent railroad tracks and a six-foot high block wall would be at the end of each motor court to prohibit access to the railroad tracks. Site Plan As shown in the elevation below, the homes would have a Spanish-style architecture with smooth stucco walls, wrought-iron Juliet balconies, tile roof, and decorative shutters. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Front (Alley) Elevation A total of 11,123 square feet of recreational area is proposed; this area would include a main recreation area with a barbeque, fire pit, lounge area, and cornhole game area. There would also be six individual recreation areas adjacent to each 6-plex featuring either a fire pit or barbeque area. All Code compliant recreation-leisure areas are provided entirely within the common areas. A detailed Development Summary is provided as Attachment No. 1 to this report. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested entitlement 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 in order to redesignate the property from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential land uses. 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. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Staff believes that consideration of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site to a higher density residential land use is appropriate. The current Low Density Residential designation allows up to 6.5 dwelling units per acre. The project site is in the vicinity of existing single-family and multiple-family land uses and includes a mix of Low, Low-Medium, and Medium Density Residential General Plan designations in the vicinity. Staff believes that the requested Mid Density Residential land use designation would be compatible with these surrounding residential designations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested General Plan Amendment. The Land Use Element describes the Mid Density Residential designation as providing for the development of a quality multiple-family living environment with design amenities, such as private open space or common recreation areas. The permitted density range is from zero to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project would have a density of 24.8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed modification to the General Plan also supports the following General Plan policies intended to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs: 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 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. Reclassification: The property is zoned Industrial “I,” which is not consistent with the existing Low Density Residential land use designation. Further, the project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment to Mid Density Residential as described above, and the implementing zone would be Multiple-Family Residential “RM-3.5.” Accordingly, the applicant proposes to reclassify the property and staff supports this request because the proposed RM-3.5 zone would comply with the proposed Mid Density Residential land use designation. Conditional Use Permit: With the proposed Reclassification, the project would be subject to the “RM-3.5” Multiple Family Residential zoning requirements. In this zone, development standards, including setback and building separation requirements, may be modified as part of a conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications serve to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Before the Planning Commission may approve the conditional use permit for a planned unit development, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The uses within the project are compatible; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 5 of 8 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 applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; 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; and 7) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The project complies with the development standards of the RM-3.5 zone with the exception of certain setback requirements. The applicant is requesting to modify the interior setback, setbacks between buildings, and the front landscape and structural setback. Setbacks for projects in the RM- 3.5 zone may be modified in conjunction 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. This proposed project includes modifications to the following development standards in the RM-3.5 zoning district: Setback RM-3.5 Zone Standards Proposed Project Interior 20 feet 3 feet Building to Building (3-story to 3-story) 40 feet 15 feet Front Landscape 10 feet 3 feet Front Structural (within 150 feet of single family residential) 55 feet 17’-8” Interior Setback: The applicant is requesting a 3-foot building setback along the eastern property line adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, where a 20-foot setback is required for three story structures. The intent of the 20-foot setback along the interior property lines is to ensure that adequate separation and landscaping protects adjacent uses from the proposed use. Staff believes the request for the modification of the interior setback requirement is justified because the property abuts the railroad, which is not a sensitive use in need of additional separation from the proposed residential units. The applicant will be required to demonstrate required sound attenuation; therefore, the proposed setback modification is appropriate to maximize functionality of the proposed floor plans and common area, given the narrow configuration of the lot. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested interior setback modification request. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Building to Building Setback: The Municipal Code requires a 40-foot separation between three- story buildings with parallel walls that are designated as “primary” walls. Primary walls are building walls that contain an entrance and/or windows opening into living areas. 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 proposed project would provide reduced building-to-building setbacks of 15-feet at the narrowest point. The three- story primary building elevations would be separated by attractive landscaped paseos or courtyards providing front-door access and would require a setback modification, but would have adequate separation to ensure a quality living environment. The elevations would be enhanced and articulated with quality design features; therefore, staff believes that the modified separations between buildings are justified because the proposed setbacks would allow for the efficient layout of buildings on the property while ensuring a quality living environment. In past projects requesting similar setback reductions, the Planning Commission has required translucent windows to maximize privacy between units. The applicant’s preference is to install standard transparent windows. Window coverings, such as blinds and drapes, would be selected by the buyer based on their own personal preferences. Front Landscape and Structural Setback: The applicant is requesting a 3-foot front landscape setback along the public alley where a 10-foot landscape would be required. The applicant requests this modification to allow improvement of several common areas with amenities such as fire pits and grills and to count the area as part of the qualifying recreation-leisure area, which is otherwise not allowed in required landscape setbacks. The applicant also requests a 17’-8” structural setback where 55-feet would be required due to the proximity to a single-family residential zone. Staff is supportive of the request because the narrow lot configuration necessitates setback modifications to ensure functional and quality floor plans, and maximized common area amenities for the enjoyment of the residents. Further, the developer will widen the substandard alley by 5-feet to its ultimate width and improve a landscape parkway and sidewalk on private property, which will provide pedestrian connectivity from North Street to Wilhelmina Street. Staff also considered the location and design of the single-family residential on the west side of the alley, specifically that most lots feature alley-loaded garages rather than habitable space or backyard, thereby maximizing separation and privacy. Staff also supports the use of the front setback for recreation-leisure area due to the relatively low traffic volumes expected on an alley versus other types of public street designs that would see much higher traffic volumes and would render the setback area inappropriate for recreational-leisure areas. Tentative Tract Map: Before the Planning Commission may approve the tentative tract map, 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 "Mid Density Residential" land use designation proposed as part of General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00524, now pending. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 7 of 8 2) That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, including their design and improvements, is consistent with the zoning and development standards of the "RM-3.5" Multiple-Family Residential Zone proposed as part of Reclassification No. 2018-00317, now pending, with the exception of the reduced setbacks being proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980. 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. 18182, 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. 18182 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. 18182, 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. A tentative tract map is proposed to create a 1-lot condominium subdivision for the 39 “airspace” condominium units. All common areas, including driveways, recreational areas, paseos and sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. The proposed density of 24.8 dwelling units per acre is permitted under the Mid Density Residential land use designation which allows up to 27 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project does not conflict with easements acquired by the public and complies with all subdivision requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the tentative tract map request. Historic Preservation Committee: The applicant presented the project to the Historic Preservation Committee on January 16, 2019. The Committee asked questions regarding the building elevations, the amount of parking being provided, common open space amenities, price points, and the proposed improvements of the alley. After these questions were answered by the applicant, the committee stated that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood and supported the proposal. Community Outreach and Correspondence: The applicant conducted door to door outreach to all homes located on the alley adjacent to the project (which front on Pauline Street). The applicant indicated that responses from the community were generally positive or neutral. A detailed response matrix was provided by the applicant and is included as Attachment 15. In addition, two project notification signs were posted in accordance with the City’s “Sunshine Ordinance.” The City received three letters in opposition to the project, dated January 24, January 29, and January 30, 2019, citing concerns regarding increased traffic, parking, and neighborhood overcrowding as negative characteristics of the proposed project. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 February 4, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Environmental Impact Analysis: An Initial Study in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify necessary mitigation pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The IS/MND was circulated to public agencies and interested parties on January 10, 2019, for a 20-day comment period. The City received comment letters from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. None of the comments received required recirculation of the MND; however, conditions of approval have been incorporated into the draft resolution to address the comments. Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 361, attached to this report. These mitigation measures are related to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, tribal cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise. The mitigation measures are being recommended to the Planning Commission as conditions of approval in the attached draft resolution for the approval of the proposed project. With implementation of these measures, the IS/MND concluded that project impacts will be reduced to levels considered less than significant and there would be no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project. CONCLUSION: Staff has carefully considered the proposed project and believes that it 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 goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Although the City Council has adopted a policy emphasizing the importance of affordable housing, the developer has not proposed any affordable units. The developer believes that the housing product offered will be an affordable alternative to buyers characterized as “workforce” or “first-time home buyers”. Staff recommends approval of the proposed request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor David See Associate Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Development Summary 2. Draft MND Resolution 3. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution 4. Draft Reclassification Resolution 5. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 6. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution 7. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 361 9. Letter of Request 10. General Plan Amendment Justification Letter 11. Reclassification Justification Letter 12. Conditional Use Permit Justification Letter 13. Project Plans 14. Tentative Tract Map 15. Applicant Outreach Matrix 16. Response to Comments with Comment Letters 17. Correspondence IDEV 2017-00124RV STORAGE FACILITY RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4APTS12 DU IINDUSTRIAL IOUTDOOR STORAGE RM-4PARKSIDE LA PALMA APTS74 DU RM-4HOMELESSSHELTER RM-4APTS8 DU 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 RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R M - 4 A P T S 2 2 D U R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RM-4APTS12 DU RM-4APTS6 DU RM-4APTS12 DU R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R M - 4 A P T S 2 2 D U N P A U L I N E S T N T O P E K A S T N V I N E S T N M A V I S S T N B U S H S T E N O R T H S T E W I L H E L M I N A S TN S A B I N A S T E A L B E R T A S T E N O R T H S T N V I N E S TE W I L H E L M I N A S T E. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E N . H A R B O R B L V D N . E A S T S T W .L I N C O L N A V E E . B R O A D W A Y N . A C A C I A S T N . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D W. LA PALMA AVE E . B R O A D W A Y D E V N o . 2 0 1 7 -0 0 12 4 Subject Property APN: 035-205-01 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Pho to:May 20 18 N P A U L I N E S T N T O P E K A S T N V I N E S T N M A V I S S T N B U S H S T E N O R T H S T E W I L H E L M I N A S TN S A B I N A S T E A L B E R T A S T E N O R T H S T N V I N E S TE W I L H E L M I N A S T E. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E N . H A R B O R B L V D N . E A S T S T W .L I N C O L N A V E E . B R O A D W A Y N . A C A C I A S T N . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D W. LA PALMA AVE E . B R O A D W A Y D E V N o . 2 0 1 7 -0 0 12 4 Subject Property APN: 035-205-01 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Pho to:May 20 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Development Standard Proposed Project RM-3.5 Standards Site Area 1.57 --- Density 24.8 du/ac 27 du/ac max. (based on proposed Mid Density Residential General Plan land use designation) Lot Area 68,389 square feet 62,400 square feet Lot Width 780 feet 70 feet Floor Area 2-bed: 1,270 4-bed: 1,509 sq. feet 2-bed: 825 sq. ft. 4-bed: 1,200 sq. ft. minimum Lot Coverage 39% 50% maximum Front Landscape Setback 3-feet 10 feet* Front Structural Setback 17’-8” 55* Interior Setback 3-feet 20 feet* Building to Building setback 15-feet 40 feet (3-story)* Building Height 36’-4” feet, 3 stories 40 feet, 3 stories Parking 106 spaces 104 spaces * May be modified by CUP [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 -1- PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-00524, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 (DEV2017-00124) (APN 035-205-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18182 to demolish an existing RV storage lot and construct 39 new single-family attached residences with modified development standards (the "Proposed Project"), for that certain real property generally located at the easterly terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street and commonly referred to as APN 035-205-01 in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.57 acres in size and is currently developed with an RV storage lot. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low Density Residential land uses. The Property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone. The development standards and regulations of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply to the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is to construct 39 single-family attached residences with modified development standards subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980 by the Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 18.06.030 (Uses), of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple- Family Residential Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 is to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2018-00317 is to reclassify the property from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple-family Residential Zone; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 18182 proposes a 1-lot subdivision for 39 condominiums; 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 -2- PC2019-*** 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 January 10, 2019, 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 of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard., Anaheim, California; at the Anaheim Public Library, Central Library at 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California; and, the Ponderosa Joint Use Library at 240 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and 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 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 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. 361"). A complete copy of MMP No. 361 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the 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 February 4, 2019, 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. 361 and the comments received to date and the responses prepared, 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 CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and, -3- PC2019-*** together with MMP No. 361, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project; 2. That it 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; 3. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impacts upon the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in MMP No. 361 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this 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 adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period) and find and determine as follows: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and, together with MMP No. 361, 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. 361 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; 3. That the Planning Commission approve and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMP No. 361; and 4. That the Planning Commission 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. -4- PC2019-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2019. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on February 4, 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5- PC2019-*** Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  1  of  7     Pr o j e c t  Na m e :    Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t     Ca s e  Nu m b e r s :    De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  Am e n d m e n t  (G P A  20 1 8 ‐00 5 2 4 )   Re c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  (R C L  20 1 8 ‐00 3 1 7 )    Co n d i t i o n a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  (C U P  20 1 8 ‐05 9 8 0 )    Te n t a t i v e  Tr a c t  Ma p  (T T M  18 1 8 2 )     Pr o j e c t  Lo c a t i o n :    Th e  1. 5 7 ‐ac r e  pr o j e c t  si t e  is  lo c a t e d  so u t h  of  No r t h  St r e e t  an d  no r t h  of  Wi l h e l m i n a  St r e e t ,  ap p r ox i m a t e l y  1,200  feet  to   th e  we s t  of  Ea s t  St r e e t ;  48 0  fe e t  to  th e  so u t h  of  La  Pa l m a  Av e n u e .  AP N :  03 5 ‐20 5 ‐01 .     Pr o j e c t   De s c r i p t i o n : Th e   Ap p l i c a n t   pr o p o s e s   to   de m o l i s h   an   ex i s t i n g   ou t d o o r   su r f a c e   pa r k i n g   lo t / s t o r a g e   ya r d   an d   co n s t r u c t  39  attached,  si n g l e ‐fa m i l y  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s .  Th e  Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  ut i l i z e s  th e  RM ‐3. 5  st a n d a r d s  at  a  de n s i t y  of  24.84  units/acre, and   fe a t u r e s  th r e e ‐st o r y  ho m e s  wi t h  en t r y  co u r t y a r d s ,  a   pr i v a t e  dr i v e s ,  fe n c i n g ,   si d e w a l k s  an d  la n d s c a p i n g  separating  the   ex i s t i n g  si n g l e ‐fa m i l y  re s i d e n t i a l  to  th e  we s t .  Th e  Ap p l i c a n t  is  pr o p o s i n g  th e  fo l l o w i n g  se t b a c k  mo d i f i c a t i o n s :  three  feet   fr o m  th e  ea s t  pr o p e r t y  li n e  to  th e  bu i l d i n g s  wh e r e  15  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  th r e e  fe e t  of  la n d s c a p e  setback  from  the   ea s t  pr o p e r t y  li n e  wh e r e  fi v e  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  24  fe e t  be t w e e n  bu i l d i n g s  wh e r e  40  fe e t  would  be  required; 41   fe e t  fr o m  th e  Si n g l e  Fa m i l y  Re s i d e n t i a l  Zo n e  to  th e  we s t  wh e r e  55  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  in cl u s i o n  of  the  three ‐foot   pa r k w a y   an d   fo u r ‐fo o t   si d e w a l k   wi t h i n   th e   re q u i r e d   10 ‐fo o t   la n d s c a p e   se t b a c k   fr o m   th e   al l e y ;  and  a  seven ‐foot   re d u c t i o n  of  th e  re q u i r e d  10 ‐fo o t  la n d s c a p e  se t b a c k  fo r  pa r k i n g  sp a c e s  an d  Re c r e a t i o n a l ‐Le i s u r e  common  space  area.  In   ad d i t i o n ,   th e   ex i s t i n g   al l e y   wo u l d   be   wi d e n e d   to   20   fe e t   pe r   Ci t y   st a n d a r d s   an d   th e   ex i s t i n g   se w e r  lin e  in  the  alley   wo u l d   be   re p l a c e d .   Th e   tw o   an d   fo u r ‐be d r o o m   ho m e s   wo u l d   ra n g e   in   si z e   fr o m   1, 2 1 5   to   1, 7 7 9  SF. All  homes  would   ha v e  a   tw o ‐ca r  ga r a g e   an d   th e r e  wo u l d   be   28  op e n  pa r k i n g  sp a c e s ,  fo r  a   to t a l   of  10 6  sp a c e s  (2 . 7  parking  spaces/unit,  ex c e e d i n g  th e  pa r k i n g  re q u i r e m e n t  by  2  sp a c e s ) . EX H I B I T "B " AT T A C H M E N T NO. 2 Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  2  of  7     Te r m s   an d   De f i n i t i o n s :    1. Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   –  Ow n e r   or   de v e l o p e r   of   Do w n t o w n   An a h e i m   39   Re s i d e n t i a l   Pr o j e c t .     2. En v i r o n m e n t a l   Eq u i v a l e n t / T i m i n g   –  An y   mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e   an d  ti m i n g   th e r e o f ,   su b j e c t  to   th e   ap p r o v a l  of   th e   Ci t y ,  wh i c h   wi l l   ha v e   th e   sa m e   or   su p e r i o r   re s u l t   an d   wi l l   ha v e   th e   sa m e   or   su p e r i o r   ef f e c t   on   th e   en v i r o n m e n t .   Th e   Pl a n n i n g   De p a r t m e n t ,   in   co n j u n c t i o n   wi t h   an y  ap p r o p r i a t e   ag e n c i e s   or   Ci t y   de p a r t m e n t s ,   sh a l l   de t e r m i n e   th e   ad e q u a c y   of   an y   pr o p o s e d   "e n v i r o n m e n t a l   eq u i v a l e n t / t i m i n g "   an d ,   if   de t e r m i n e d   ne c e s s a r y ,   ma y   re f e r   sa i d   de t e r m i n a t i o n   to   th e   Pl a n n i n g   Co m m i s s i o n .   An y   co s t s   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   in f o r m a t i o n   re q u i r e d   in   or d e r   to   de t e r m i n e   en v i r o n m e n t a l   eq u i v a l e n c y /   ti m i n g  sh a l l   be   do n e   by  th e  pr o p e r t y  ow n e r / d e v e l o p e r .  St a f f   ti m e  fo r  re v i e w s  wi l l  be  ch a r g e d  on  a  ti m e   an d  ma t e r i a l s  ba s i s   at  th e  ra t e  in  th e  Ci t y ' s  ad o p t e d  Fe e  Sc h e d u l e .     3. Ti m i n g  – Th i s  is  th e  po i n t  wh e r e  a  mi t i g a t i o n  me a s u r e  mu s t  be   mo n i t o r e d   fo r   co m p l i a n c e .  In   th e   ca s e   wh e r e   mu l t i p l e  ac t i o n   it e m s   ar e   in d i c a t e d ,   it   is   th e   fi r s t   po i n t   wh e r e   co m p l i a n c e   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   th e   mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e   mu s t   be   mo n i t o r e d .   On c e   th e   in i t i a l   ac t i o n   it e m   ha s   be e n   co m p l i e d   wi t h ,   no   ad d i t i o n a l   mo n i t o r i n g   pu r s u a n t  to   th e   Mi t i g a t i o n   Mo n i t o r i n g   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n   wi l l   oc c u r ,   as   ro u t i n e   Ci t y   pr a c t i c e s   an d   pr o c e d u r e s   wi l l   en s u r e   th a t   th e   in t e n t   of   th e   me a s u r e   ha s   be e n   co m p l i e d   wi t h .   Fo r   ex a m p l e ,   if   th e   ti m i n g   is   "t o   be   sh o w n   on   ap p r o v e d   bu i l d i n g   pl a n s "   su b s e q u e n t   to   is s u a n c e   of   th e   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  co n s i s t e n t  with  the  approved  plans  will   be   fi n a l   bu i l d i n g   an d   zo n i n g   in s p e c t i o n s  pursuant  to  the   bu i l d i n g   pe r m i t  to  en s u r e  co m p l i a n c e .     4. Re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   Mo n i t o r i n g  –  Shall  mean  that  compliance   wi t h   th e   su b j e c t  mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e ( s )  shall  be  reviewed  and   de t e r m i n e d   ad e q u a t e   by   al l   de p a r t m e n t s  listed  for  each   mi t i g a t i o n  me a s u r e .  Ou t s i d e  pu b l i c  agency  review  is  limited  to   th o s e   pu b l i c   ag e n c i e s  sp e c i f i e d   in  the  Mitigation  Monitoring   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n   wh i c h   ha v e  permit  authority  in   co n j u n c t i o n   wi t h  th e  mi t i g a t i o n  measure.    5. On g o i n g   Mi t i g a t i o n   Me a s u r e s   – The  mitigation  measures   th a t   ar e   de s i g n a t e d   to   oc c u r   on   an  ongoing  basis  as  part  of   th i s   Mi t i g a t i o n   Mo n i t o r i n g   an d  Reporting  Plan  will  be   mo n i t o r e d  in   th e   fo r m   of   an   an n u a l  letter  from  the  property   ow n e r / d e v e l o p e r  in   Ja n u a r y   of   ea c h  year  demonstrating  how   co m p l i a n c e   wi t h   th e   su b j e c t   me a s u r e ( s )  has  been  achieved.  Wh e n  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h   a   me a s u r e  has  been  demonstrated  for   a   pe r i o d   of   on e   ye a r ,   mo n i t o r i n g  of  the  measure  will  be   de e m e d  to   be   sa t i s f i e d   an d   no  fu r t h e r  monitoring  will  occur.  Fo r   me a s u r e s   th a t   ar e   to   be   monitored  "Ongoing  During   Co n s t r u c t i o n " ,   th e   an n u a l  le t t e r   will  review  those  measures   on l y   wh i l e   co n s t r u c t i o n   is   oc c u r r i n g ;  monitoring  will  be   di s c o n t i n u e d   af t e r   co n s t r u c t i o n   is  complete. A  final  annual   le t t e r  wi l l  be  pr o v i d e d  at  th e  cl o s e  of  construction.    6. Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t   –   Fo r   pu r p o s e s  of  this  Mitigation  Monitoring   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n ,   a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  shall  be  defined  as  any   pe r m i t  is s u e d  fo r  co n s t r u c t i o n  of  a  new  building  or  structural   ex p a n s i o n   or   mo d i f i c a t i o n   of   an y  existing  building  but  shall   no t   in c l u d e   an y   pe r m i t s   re q u i r e d  for  interior  tenant   im p r o v e m e n t s   or   mi n o r   ad d i t i o n s  to  an  existing  structure  or   bu i l d i n g .   Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  3  of  7     MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   V.  CU L T U R A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐CU L ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e  Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r  sh a l l  in c l u d e  a  no t e  on  th e   pl a n s   th a t   in   th e   ev e n t   of   th e   in a d v e r t e n t   di s c o v e r y   of   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s   (i n c l u d i n g   hi s t o r i c a l ,   ar c h a e o l o g i c a l ,   an d   tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s )   du r i n g   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s ,   wo r k   wi t h i n   10 0   fe e t   wo u l d   be   ha l t e d   un t i l   th e   di s c o v e r y   ca n   be   ev a l u a t e d   by   a   qu a l i f i e d   ar c h a e o l o g i s t ,   th e   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ( s )   fr o m   co n s u l t i n g   tr i b e s   (o r   ot h e r   ap p r o p r i a t e   et h n i c / c u l t u r a l   gr o u p   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ) ,   an d   th e   Co m m u n i t y   De v e l o p m e n t   Di r e c t o r   or   th e i r   de s i g n e e ,   to   an a l y z e   th e   si g n i f i c a n c e   of   th e   fi n d .    Co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   co n t i n u e   in   ot h e r   ar e a s .   If   th e   ar c h a e o l o g i s t   an d / o r   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ( s )   de t e r m i n e   th a t   th e   fi n d   is   si g n i f i c a n t ,   ad d i t i o n a l   wo r k ,   su c h   as   da t a   re c o v e r y   ex c a v a t i o n   or   re s o u r c e   re c o v e r y ,   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d   an d   wo u l d   be   di s c u s s e d  in  co n s u l t a t i o n  wi t h  th e  ap p r o p r i a t e  re g u l a t o r y   ag e n c y  an d / o r  tr i b a l  gr o u p .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t         Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  4  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   IX .  NO I S E   MM ‐NO I ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l   in c l u d e   on   th e   bu i l d i n g  pl a n s  th e  co n s t r u c t i o n  of  a  mi n i m u m  12 ‐fo o t  hi g h   so u n d  wa l l ,  as  me a s u r e d  fr o m  th e  Pr o j e c t  Si t e  si d e  of  th e   wa l l ,   to   en c l o s e   th e   re c r e a t i o n a l   op e n   sp a c e  at  th e   no r t h   en d  of  th e  Pr o j e c t  Si t e ,  as  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  7,  Co n c e p t u a l   Wa l l   an d   Fe n c e   Pl a n .    Th e   wa l l   wo u l d   be g i n   at   th e   no r t h e a s t   co r n e r   of   th e   th r e e ‐pl e x   bu i l d i n g   an d   co n t i n u e   no r t h   al o n g   th e   ea s t   pr o p e r t y   li n e ,   th e n   we s t   al o n g   th e   no r t h e r l y   pr o p e r t y   li n e   fo r   57   li n e a r   fe e t .   Th e   so u n d   wa l l   sh a l l   be   co n s t r u c t e d   wi t h   co n c r e t e   ma s o n r y   un i t s   (c m u )   th a t  ar e  fr e e  of  an y  cu t o u t s  or  op e n i n g s .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     MM ‐NO I ‐2   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l   in c l u d e   on   th e   bu i l d i n g  pl a n s  th e  re q u i r e m e n t  th a t  ac o u s t i c  pe r f o r m a n c e   du a l   pa n e   wi n d o w s   wi t h   a   mi n i m u m   So u n d   Tr a n s m i s s i o n   Cl a s s   (S T C )   ra t i n g   of   37   ST C   be   in s t a l l e d   on   al l   be d r o o m   wi n d o w s  lo c a t e d  on  th e  no r t h ,  ea s t ,  an d  so u t h  si d e s  of  th e   re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  5  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   XI I I .  PA L E O N T O L O G I C A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐PA L ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e  Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r  sh a l l  su b m i t  to  th e  Ci t y  of   An a h e i m   Pu b l i c   Wo r k s   De p a r t m e n t   ev i d e n c e   th a t   a   qu a l i f i e d  pa l e o n t o l o g i s t  ha s  be e n  re t a i n e d  fo r  mo n i t o r i n g   of  gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  oc c u r r i n g  at  a  de p t h  of  fo u r   fe e t   or   gr e a t e r   be l o w   gr o u n d   su r f a c e .   If   pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l   re s o u r c e s   ar e   un e a r t h e d   du r i n g   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   th e   Pr o p o s e d   Pr o j e c t ,   th e   Co n t r a c t o r  sh a l l  ce a s e  al l  ea r t h ‐di s t u r b i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  wi t h i n   50   fe e t   of   th e   di s c o v e r y   an d   co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   co n t i n u e   in   ot h e r   ar e a s .   Th e   pa l e o n t o l o g i s t   sh a l l   co l l e c t   an d   pr o c e s s   se d i m e n t   sa m p l e s   to   de t e r m i n e   th e   sm a l l   fo s s i l   po t e n t i a l   on   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e .   Th e   pa l e o n t o l o g i s t   sh a l l  ev a l u a t e  th e  re s o u r c e  an d  de t e r m i n e  if  th e  di s c o v e r y   is   si g n i f i c a n t .   If   th e   di s c o v e r y   pr o v e s   to   be   si g n i f i c a n t ,   ad d i t i o n a l   wo r k   su c h   as   da t a   re c o v e r y   ex c a v a t i o n   or   re s o u r c e   re c o v e r y   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d   an d   sh a l l   be   di s c u s s e d  in  co n s u l t a t i o n  wi t h  th e  ap p r o p r i a t e  re g u l a t o r y   ag e n c y .  An y  fo s s i l s  re c o v e r e d  du r i n g  mi t i g a t i o n  sh o u l d  be   de p o s i t e d   in   an   ac c r e d i t e d   an d   pe r m a n e n t   sc i e n t i f i c   in s t i t u t i o n   fo r   th e   be n e f i t   of   cu r r e n t   an d   fu t u r e   ge n e r a t i o n s .   Pu b l i c  Wo r k s   De p a r t m e n t       Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  6  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   XV I I .  TR I B A L  CU L T U R A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐TC R ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l  su b m i t   to   th e   Ci t y   a   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   mo n i t o r i n g   ag r e e m e n t   wi t h   th e   Ga b r i e l e ñ o  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s  – Ki z h  Na t i o n  fo r  tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e   mo n i t o r i n g   to   ta k e   pl a c e   du r i n g   su b s u r f a c e   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s .   If   tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s   ar e   en c o u n t e r e d   du r i n g   gr o u n d   di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s ,   wo r k   in   th e   im m e d i a t e   ar e a   mu s t   ha l t .  De p e n d i n g  on  th e  na t u r e  of  th e  fi n d ,  if  th e  di s c o v e r y   pr o v e s   to   be   po t e n t i a l l y   si g n i f i c a n t   un d e r   CE Q A ,   as   de t e r m i n e d   by   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ,   ad d i t i o n a l   me a s u r e s  su c h  as  da t a  re c o v e r y  ex c a v a t i o n ,  av o i d a n c e  of   th e   ar e a   of   th e   fi n d ,   do c u m e n t a t i o n ,   te s t i n g ,   da t a   re c o v e r y ,   re b u r i a l ,   ar c h i v a l   re v i e w   an d / o r   tr a n s f e r   to   th e   ap p r o p r i a t e   mu s e u m   or   ed u c a t i o n a l   in s t i t u t i o n ,   or   ot h e r   ap p r o p r i a t e   ac t i o n s   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d .   Th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e   sh a l l   co m p l e t e   a   br i e f   le t t e r   re p o r t   of   ex c a v a t i o n s  an d  fi n d i n g s  an d  su b m i t  th e  re p o r t  to  th e  Ci t y .   Af t e r  th e  fi n d  is  ap p r o p r i a t e l y  mi t i g a t e d ,  wo r k  in  th e  ar e a   ma y  re s u m e .      At   th e   di s c r e t i o n   of   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ,   mo n i t o r i n g   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   be   al l o w e d   to   ce a s e   if   en o u g h   ev i d e n c e   is   pr o d u c e d   th a t   so i l s   un d e r l y i n g   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e   ar e   no t   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  7  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   na t i v e ,   un d i s t u r b e d   so i l s .   In   th i s   ev e n t ,   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e  sh a l l  do c u m e n t  al l  pe r t i n e n t  ev i d e n c e  th a t   ju s t i f i e s  th e  ce a s i n g  of  mo n i t o r i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  an d  pr o v i d e  it   wi t h i n  a  br i e f  le t t e r  re p o r t  fo r  th e  Ci t y ’ s  re v i e w .  Sh o u l d  th e   Ci t y   co n c u r   wi t h   th e s e   fi n d i n g s ,   mo n i t o r i n g   sh a l l   be   pe r m i t t e d   to   ce a s e   wi t h i n   al l   ar e a s   on   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e   sh o w n  to  co n t a i n  on l y  di s t u r b e d ,  no n ‐na t i v e  fi l l  so i l s .     [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** 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. 2018-00524 (DEV2017-00124) (APN 035-205-01) 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. 2018-00524") for certain real property generally located at the easterly terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street and commonly referred to as APN 035-205-01 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 19 attached, single-family residences ; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.57 acres in size and is located in the "I" Industrial Zone and the regulations contained in Chapter 18.06 (Multiple Family Residential Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply. The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "Low Density Residential" uses; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 proposes to amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to re-designate the Property from the "Low-Medium Density Residential" to the "Mid Density Residential" land use designation; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) for approval of Reclassification No. 2018-00317 to reclassify the property from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple-family Residential Zone; (ii) approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 39-unit, attached single family residential project with modified development standards, which is designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980", and (iii) approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 1-lot, 39 unit attached single-family residential subdivision of the Property for condominium purposes, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 18182". General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00314, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, 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 - 2 - PC2019-*** 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 January 10, 2019, 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 of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard., Anaheim, California; at the Anaheim Public Library, Central Library at 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California; and, the Ponderosa Joint Use Library at 240 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and 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 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 CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on February 4, 2019, 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 Addendum 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, 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: 1. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan, as the proposed modifications to the General Plan are consistent with Goals 1.1, 2.1, 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. 2018-00524 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 that would be compatible with the existing residential development within the vicinity of the project. - 3 - PC2019-*** 3. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 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 Low, Low-Medium, and Medium Density Residential designations for the neighboring properties to the north, south, east, and west. 4. That the Property to be re-designated by proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 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. 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. BE IT FURTHER 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. 2018-00524 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2019. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2019-*** 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 February 4, 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2019-*** - 6 - PC2019-*** EXHIBIT “B” [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2018-00317 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00124) (APN 035-205-01) 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 generally located at the easterly terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street and commonly referred to as APN 035-205-01 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") from the "I" Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple-Family Residential Zone, which reclassification is designated as Reclassification No. 2018-00317; and WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with RV storage lot and is located in the "I" Industrial Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2018-00317 is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524 to redesginate the property from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential; (ii) a conditional use permit to permit a 39-unit, attached single family residential project with modified development standards, which is designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980", and (iii) a tentative tract map to permit a 1-lot, 39 unit attached single-family residential subdivision of the Property for condominium purposes, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 18182". General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18182 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, 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 proposed Reclassification No. 2018-00317 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 "projects", as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines; and - 2 - PC2019-*** 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 January 10, 2018 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 of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard., Anaheim, California; at the Anaheim Public Library, Central Library at 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California; and, the Ponderosa Joint Use Library at 240 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and 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 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 CEQA Guidelines; 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 "I" Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s proposed Mid Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan, now pending. 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 neighboring properties to the north, south, east and west, which are developed with single-family and multiple- family residential 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 in that surrounding properties include single family and multiple family residential uses within the “RS-3” Single-Family Residential Zone. 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. - 3 - PC2019-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2018-00317 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Property into the "RM-3.5" Multiple-Family Residential Zone and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2018-00317. 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 February 4, 2019. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on February 4, 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2019-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 5 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00124) (APN 035-205-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980 to permit the construction of a 39-unit attached, single-family residential project with modified development standards, i.e., a reduction in the front structural and landscape, interior, and building-to-building setback requirements of the "RM-3.5" Multiple-Family Residential Zone, for that certain real property generally located at the easterly terminus of North Street and Wilhelmina Street, approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street and commonly referred to as APN 035-205-01 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, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980 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 the Property designated as "Low Density Residential" to "Mid Density Residential" land uses, which amendment to the General Plan is designated as "General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524", (ii) Reclassification No. 2018-00317 to reclassify the property from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple-family Residential Zone and (iii) a tentative tract map to permit a 39-unit attached, single-family residential subdivision of the Property, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 18182". General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18182 shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and WHEREAS, single family, attached dwelling development within the "RM-3.5" Single-Family Residential Zone is subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection .010 of Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit Development). Pursuant to subsection .030 of Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit Development), the minimum setbacks set forth in Section 18.06.090 of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple- Family Residential Zones) may be modified in order to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. If approved, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980 will permit the reduction in front structural and landscape, interior, and building- to-building setback requirements of the "RM-3.5" Multiple-Family Residential Zone; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.57 acres in size and is currently improved with an RV storage lot. The Property is located in the "I" Industrial Zone. The Property is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "Low Density Residential" 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 - 2 - PC2019-*** “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, 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 January 10, 2019, 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 of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California; at the Anaheim Public Library, Central Library at 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California; and, the Ponderosa Joint Use Library at 240 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and 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 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 CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 4, 2019 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, pursuant to Subsection .030 (Modification of Other Standards) of Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit Development), this 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. 2017-05980: 1. The uses within the Project are compatible with the surrounding land uses; 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. The proposed buildings are single-family attached at a density and scale that is compatible with the surrounding single family and multiple family land uses in the vicinity; 3. Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate because the substandard alley width will be widened in accordance with City standards and a new sidewalk and parkways will be installed adjacent to the alley; - 3 - PC2019-*** 4. The Project is consistent with any adopted design guidelines applicable to the Property because the project has been designed to include quality architecture, sound attenuation, common recreational areas, and sufficient building setbacks from the single family homes to the west; 5. The size and shape of the site proposed for the Project is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area because the Project has been designed to include Code compliant parking and recreational areas, sufficient building setbacks from the single family homes to the west, and new pedestrian paths throughout the neighborhood; 6. The traffic generated by the Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the Project will include substantial improvements to the existing substandard public alley, and new entry points to the public streets at the north and south ends of the Project site; 7. The Project will comply with the General Plan and zoning for the Property because the Project will provide for the development of a quality multiple-family living environment with design amenities, such as private open space or common recreation areas. The permitted density range under the Mid Density Residential designation is from zero to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project will have a density of 24.8 dwelling units per acre; 8. 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. 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. BE IT FURTHER 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. 2017-05980, contingent upon and subject to: (1) the adoption by the City Council of (i) a resolution approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, (ii) Reclassification No. 2018-00317 and (iii) Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, all of which entitlements are now pending; (2) the mitigation measures set forth in MMP 361, and 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), - 4 - PC2019-*** (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 February 4, 2019. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2019-*** 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 February 4, 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2019-*** - 7 - PC2019-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05980 (DEV2017-00124) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest edition. All onsite utilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Owner, the grading plans shall be labeled accordingly. Public Works, Development Services 2 Prepare and submit a final drainage/hydrology study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution and shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system connection points and all downstream drainage-mitigating measures including but not limited to offsite storm drains and interim detention facilities. Public Works, Development Services 3 The Owner shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number. Public Works, Development Services 4 The owner shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for Public Works Development Services Division review upon request. Public Works, Development Services 5 Submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review and approval. Public Works, Development Services 6 Submit a Geotechnical Report to the Public Works Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall include any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP. Public Works, Development Services 7 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in State of California. Public Works, Development Services 8 The Owner/Developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 8 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 9 The Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the plans that in the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources) during ground- disturbing activities, work within 100 feet would be halted until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee, to analyze the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the archaeologist and/or Native American tribal representative(s) determine that the find is significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation or resource recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. MM-CUL-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 10 The Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department evidence that a qualified paleontologist has been retained for monitoring of ground-disturbing activities occurring at a depth of four feet or greater below ground surface. If paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project, the Contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery and construction activities may continue in other areas. The paleontologist shall collect and process sediment samples to determine the small fossil potential on the Project Site. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine if the discovery is significant. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work such as data recovery excavation or resource recovery may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. MM-PAL-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 11 The Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a Native American tribal monitoring agreement with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for tribal cultural resource monitoring to take place during subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt. Depending on the nature of the find, if the discovery proves to be potentially significant under CEQA, as determined by the tribal representative, additional measures such as data recovery excavation, avoidance of the area of the find, documentation, testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution, or other appropriate actions may be warranted. The tribal representative shall complete a brief letter report of excavations and findings and submit the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT report to the City. After the find is appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. At the discretion of the tribal representative, monitoring activities may be allowed to cease if enough evidence is produced that soils underlying the Project Site are not native, undisturbed soils. In this event, the tribal representative shall document all pertinent evidence that justifies the ceasing of monitoring activities and provide it within a brief letter report for the City’s review. Should the City concur with these findings, monitoring shall be permitted to cease within all areas on the Project Site shown to contain only disturbed, non-native fill soils. MM-TCR-1 12 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department a Right of Entry Agreement, if required by SCRRA. The Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit demolition plans to the SCRRA Engineering Department Attn: Andy Althorp, Principal Engineer, 2558 Supply Street, Pomona, CA 91767 for review and if required, a Right of Entry agreement. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 13 The applicant shall coordinate with SCRRA and PUC to ensure project construction and project operation will not interfere with the existing SCRRA railroad line immediately adjacent to the project site. Any relocation or modification of facilities related to the railroad line and/or the active railroad crossing shall be performed prior to final building and zoning inspection at the expense of the property owner. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 14 The applicant shall submit draft Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are prepared by an authorized professional for review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which will generally provide for the following: a. A requirement that residents shall use designated parking area, including garages, only for the parking of vehicles. b. A provision that parking garages are subject to inspection by the Association or City of Anaheim staff. c. A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs shall be submitted for review to the City Engineer, Planning Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendment being valid. d. A provision that the City is a third-party beneficiary to the CC&Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC&Rs relative to common area and utility maintenance, Water Quality Management Plan, and internal parking. Public Works, Traffic Engineering - 10 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 15 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control along the alley for North Street and at Wilhelmina Street. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be painted on the alleyway in the north/south direction at both North Street and at Wilhelmina Street prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 16 Record Tract Map No. 18182 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with City Code. Provide a duplicate photo Mylar of the recorded map to the City Engineer's office. Public Works, Development Services 17 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City approved grading plan. Public Works, Development Services 18 A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work performed in the public right- of-way. Public Works, Development Services 19 The developer shall construct a 20 foot wide public alley between North Street and Wilhelmina Street per City Standard 131 or as approved by the City Engineer. Public Works, Development Services 20 The developer shall construct interim driveways at the ultimate right of way per City Standard 115-B or as approved by the City Engineer. Public Works, Development Services 21 No private improvements and/or decorative improvements shall be constructed within the public right-of-way. Public Works, Development Services 22 The developer shall construct all improvements along the project’s frontage on the Public Alley, North Street, and Wilhelmina Street. The improvements shall include but not limited to reconstruction of the public alley, interim driveways at both ends of the alley, curb and gutter, pavement, driveway, ADA ramps, parkway drains, power pole relocations, water meters removals, sewer improvements, etc. The developer’s engineer shall submit to the City for review and approval an engineering cost estimate for the cost of the required improvements. Public Works, Development Services 23 The developer shall abandon and remove the existing 6 inch sewer line under the public alley and shall construct an 8 inch sewer line per City Standards and the City Sewer Design Manual. Public Works, Development Services 24 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881). Public Works, Development Services 25 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection, irrigation, and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 11 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 26 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537- 537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 27 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 other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 28 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 29 The Owner/Developer shall submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities Water Engineering 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 30 The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 12 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 31 If it is determined during final design that additional water connection(s) on Wilhelmina Street will be required to meet domestic or fire flow demands, the existing water main on Wilhelmina Street shall be extended to the end of the cul-de-sac and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division. The water main extension shall be ductile iron with a minimum diameter of 8 inches. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 32 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 33 The Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans the construction of a minimum 12-foot high sound wall, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall, to enclose the recreational open space at the north end of the Project Site, as shown on Figure 7, Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. The wall would begin at the northeast corner of the three-plex building and continue north along the east property line, then west along the northerly property line for 57 linear feet. The sound wall shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) that are free of any cutouts or openings. MM-NOI-1 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 34 The Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans the requirement that acoustic performance dual pane windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 37 STC be installed on all bedroom windows located on the north, east, and south sides of the residential units. MM-NOI-2 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 35 The Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit wall plans for the east property line to the SCRRA Engineering Department for review to ensure that the wall doesn’t encroach into the railroad right-of-way. The plans shall show that the concrete block walls proposed on the east property line shall be constructed entirely on the Project Site and not encroach into the railroad right-of-way. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 36 The Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit the final landscape plans to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that show trees planted on or adjacent to the east property line shall not have branches that extend beyond the east property line. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the trees to prevent branches from extending beyond the east property line. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 37 The Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit final storm drain plans to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department showing that no drainage shall be conveyed onto the railroad right-of-way. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 13 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 38 Project Design Feature 1: The Property Owner/Developer shall construct 6-foot high solid walls on the northern and southern property lines and between the proposed structures and the northern and southern walls on the eastern property line. The walls shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (CMU) and be free of cutouts or openings. Project Design Feature 2: The Property Owner/Developer shall provide a “windows closed” condition for each proposed residential unit. A “windows closed” condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 39 Prior to issuance of permit for occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall install MERV 13 filters in the HVAC system. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 40 Prior to the issuance of a permit for occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit to the City of Anaheim its Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that shall provide the following information to all potential home buyers regarding the Project Site’s proximity to sources of toxic air contaminant emissions (i.e., nearby railroad and industrial uses): • Disclosure that there are potential health impacts to prospective residents from living near sources of air pollution (e.g., railroad and industrial facilities). The disclosure shall describe the enhanced HVAC filtration unit, the reduced effectiveness of the air filtration system when the windows are open, and that potential health impacts could occur when residents are outdoors in the common usable open space areas; • Disclosure that there would be a potential increase in energy costs from continuously running the HVAC systems with MERV 13 filters; • Information for residents on where the MERV 13 filters can be purchased and that their periodic replacement according to manufacturer instructions is the responsibility of the homeowner; • Detailed instructions on the maintenance schedule the MERV 13 filters according to manufacturer instructions; and • Advise that the Homeowners Association representative/Property Maintenance representative may inspect the HVAC units and Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 14 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT proper installation of the MERV 13 filters with appropriate advanced notice. 41 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles, including the adjacent alleyway, shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles and along the adjacent alleyway. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 42 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 43 Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections, the property owner/developer shall execute and record with the Orange County Recorder an unsubordinated declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to run with the land, satisfactory to the City Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which restricts the installation of vehicle gates across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, an amendment to the CC&R’s approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director and the City Attorney's office and recorded. Gates, if any, shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 44 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected and approved by Construction Services prior to the final building and zoning inspection. Public Works, Development Services 45 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be paid in full. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 46 Set all Monuments in accordance with the final map and submit all centerline ties to Public Works Department. Any monuments damaged as a result of construction shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 47 All required WQMP improvements shall be operational and verified by the Construction Services Division Inspector. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 48 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 49 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering - 15 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 50 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Water Engineering ON-GOING DURING PROJECT GRADING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 51 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 52 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement deeds. Public Utilities Water Engineering GENERAL 53 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. • The following additional minimum clearances shall be maintained between existing and proposed public water main and other facilities: 10-feet minimum horizontal separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals. 6-feet minimum separation from curb face. • 12-inch minimum vertical separation from other utilities. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 54 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 55 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 16 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 56 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 57 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 58 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 59 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 60 The Homeowners Association shall enforce the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for each unit, which would include requirements to maintain the MERV 13 filters according to manufacturer instructions. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 6 - 1 - PC2019-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2017-00124) (APN 035-205-01) 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. 18182 to establish a 1-lot, 39-unit attached residential subdivision for that certain real property located at APN 035-205-01 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. 18182 is proposed in conjunction with a request (i) to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to re-designate the Property from "Low Density Residential" to "Mid Density Residential" land uses, which amendment to the General Plan is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, (ii) approval of Reclassification No. 2018-00317 to reclassify the property from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM-3.5” Multiple- Family Residential Zone, (iii) approval of a conditional use permit to permit the construction of 39 attached single family residences with modified development standards, which is designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980". General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05980, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.57 acres in size and is currently improved developed with an RV storage lot. The Property is located in the "I" Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code. The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "Low Density Residential" 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, 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 January 10, 2019, 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 of City Hall at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California; at the Anaheim Public Library, Central Library at 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California; and, - 2 - PC2019-*** the Ponderosa Joint Use Library at 240 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California. Copies of said document were also available for purchase; and 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 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 CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission finds and determines and recommends 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 361 and that the City Council approve and adopt MMP 361; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 4, 2019 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, 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. 18182, 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. 18182, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the "Mid Density Residential" land use designation proposed as part of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, now pending. 2. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the zoning and development standards of the "RM-3.5" Multiple Family Residential Zone contained in Chapter 18.06) 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 No. 18182, 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. 18182, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. - 3 - PC2019-*** 6. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 18182, 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. 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, 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. 18182, contingent upon and subject to: (1) the adoption by the City Council of (i) a resolution approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524; an ordinance approving Reclassification No. 2018-00317, all of which entitlements are now pending; the mitigation measures set forth in MMP 361; and 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 - PC2019-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2019. 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. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on February 4, 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of February, 2019. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2019-*** - 6 - PC2019-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18182 (DEV2017-00124) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP 1 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 5 foot easement on the Public Alley to the ultimate right of way width of 20 feet, for road, public utilities and other public purposes. Such dedication shall establish a new centerline for the Public Alley. Public Works, Development Services 2 The final map shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim, Public Works Development Services Division and to the Orange County Surveyor for technical correctness review and approval. Public Works, Development Services 3 The developer shall execute a maintenance covenant with the City of Anaheim in a form that is approved by the City Engineer and the City attorney for the private improvements including but not limited to private utilities, drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation, private street lights, etc. in addition to maintenance requirements established in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as applicable to the project. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. Public Works, Development Services 4 The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Agreement and submit security in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to guarantee construction of the public improvements required herein. Security deposit shall be in accordance to City of Anaheim Municipal Code. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. Public Works, Development Services 5 The developer shall submit street improvement plans, obtain a right of way construction permit, and post a security (Performance and Labor & Materials Bonds) in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney for the construction of all required off-site and public improvements within the City street right of way of North Street, Wilhemina Street, and the Public Alley. Improvements shall conform to City of Anaheim City Standards as approved by the City Engineer. The street improvement plans shall include all traffic related improvements adjacent to the project site including all driveways, utility installations, signing and striping, and all other offsite work. Public Works, Development Services 6 The developer shall provide a Monumentation bond in an amount specified in writing by a Licensed Land Surveyor of Record. Public Works, Development Services 7 The developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works, Development Services - 7 - PC2019-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 8 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 9 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 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 applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division Downtown Anaheim 39 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DEV2017-00124 Prepared for: The City of Anaheim 200 S Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Contact: Nick Taylor Applicant: 740 E La Palma, LLC 2390 E Orangewood Avenue, Suite 510 Anaheim, CA 92806 Prepared for the Applicant By: 2400 East Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim, CA 92806 (714)783-1863 Contact: Amy Vazquez, Principal January 2019 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project 2400 E. Katella Ave. • Suite 800 • Anaheim, CA 92806 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Content and Format of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ...................................................................... 2 1.3 Public Review Process ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Project Site Conditions Setting................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Construction Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 31 2.5 Discretionary Actions ............................................................................................................................ 31 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ............................................................................... 32 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ........................................................................................ 34 3.2 Determination: ...................................................................................................................................... 34 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................. 35 4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................. 37 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................................. 55 4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 58 4.6 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................. 61 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................... 65 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 69 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................................ 75 4.10 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................................................... 84 4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................. 88 4.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 89 4.13 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................................................. 102 4.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 104 4.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 106 4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 110 4.17 Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 112 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 138 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................... 141 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page ii 4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................... 148 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 150 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 151 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 - Local Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 - Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4 - Floor Plans ..................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5 - Conceptual Elevation: Three Plex ................................................................................. 19 Figure 6 - Conceptual Elevation: Six Plex ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 7 - Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan .................................................................................. 21 Figure 8 - Conceptual Open Space Plan ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 9 - Conceptual Landscape Plan .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 10 - Conceptual Planting Plan ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 11 - Conceptual Lighting Plan ............................................................................................ 25 Figure 12 - Conceptual Grading Plan ............................................................................................ 26 Figure 13 – Conceptual Sewer Plan .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 14 – Conceptual Water Plan .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 15 – Conceptual Storm Drain Plan ..................................................................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Project Site Information ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 - SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ................... 42 Table 3 - SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance .................................................. 42 Table 4 - Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ......................................... 46 Table 5 - Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................. 47 Table 6 - Regional Operational Air Pollution Emissions ................................................................ 48 Table 7 - Local Operations Criteria Pollutant Emission Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptors ... 50 Table 8 - Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ...................................................... 66 Table 9 - Proposed Common Recreation Areas Exterior Noise Levels ......................................... 91 Table 10 - Proposed Residential Interior Noise Levels ................................................................. 93 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page iii Table 11 - Exterior to Interior Residential Units Rooms Noise Reduction Rates .......................... 94 Table 12 - Vibration Measurements During Train Pass-Bys ......................................................... 96 Table 13 - Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions ................................................................ 98 Table 14 - Year 2021 Cumulative Projects Conditions Project Traffic Noise Contributions ......... 99 Table 15 - Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Receptors ...... 100 Table 16 - New Student Generation ........................................................................................... 108 Table 17 - Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area ............................................................................. 113 Table 18 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ................................................. 114 Table 19 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ............................................ 115 Table 20 - Roadway Link Capacities ............................................................................................ 115 Table 21 - Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary .......................................................... 116 Table 22 - Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary .............................................. 117 Table 23 - Project Traffic Generation Forecast ........................................................................... 119 Table 24 - General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Project Traffic Generation Forecast ................... 119 Table 25 - Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ................ 121 Table 26 - Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary .......................... 123 Table 27 - Year 2021 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ................................ 126 Table 28 - Year 2021 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary .......................................... 129 Table 29 - Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 30 - Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ...... 134 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page iv APPENDICES Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis, Downtown Anaheim 39 Project Appendix B – Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches Appendix C – Sacred Lands File Search and AB52 Consultation Appendix D - Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation and Percolation Study Appendix E – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Limited Phase II Investigation Appendix F – Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix G – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix H – Noise Impact Analysis Appendix I – Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix J – Sewer Study Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page v ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition ADT average daily traffic AFD Anaheim Fire Department afy acre feet per year AMC Anaheim Municipal Code APD Anaheim Police Department Applicant 740 E La Palma, LLC APN Assessor’s Parcel Number APUD Anaheim Public Utilities Department AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASTs above ground storage tanks Basin South Coast Air Basin BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs cubic feet per second CGS California Geologic Survey CHSC California Health and Safety Code City City of Anaheim CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Value CO carbon monoxide County Orange County CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibels EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas GPA General Plan Amendment GPCD Gallons per capita per day HCM Highway Capacity Manual HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air condition Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page vi Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent sound level LBP lead-based paint LOS level of service LSTs Localized Significant Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value mgd million gallons per day MLD most likely descendent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSL mean sea level MTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCWD Orange County Water District OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OUSD Orange Unified School District PM2.5 fine particulate matter PM10 Respirable particulate matter ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SR-55 State Route 55 SR-91 State Route 91 SWCRB State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page vii Acronyms/Abbreviation Definition TMDLs total maximum daily loads TWC Time Warner Cable USTs underground storage tanks UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C volume-to-capacity VOC volatile organic compound WoUS Waters of the United States Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page viii This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project 1 INTRODUCTION 740 E La Palma, LLC (the Applicant) proposes to demolish an existing outdoor surface parking lot/storage yard and construct 39 attached, single-family residential units (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is 1.57-acres on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 035-205-01 located south of North Street and north of Wilhelmina Street, approximately 1,200 feet to the west of East Street; 480 feet to the south of La Palma Avenue (Project Site). The Proposed Project utilizes the RM-3.5 standards at a density of 24.84 units/acre, and features three- story homes with entry courtyards, a private drive, fencing, sidewalks, landscaping and the public alley separating the existing single-family residential. In addition, the existing alley would be widened to 20 feet per City standards and the existing sewer line in the alley would be replaced. The two and four-bedroom homes would range in size from 1,215 to 1,779 SF. All homes would have a two-car garage and there would be 28 open parking spaces, for a total of 106 spaces (2.7 parking spaces/unit, exceeding the parking requirement by 2 spaces). The Proposed Project is a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code § 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”). The primary purpose of CEQA is to inform the public and decision makers as to the potential impacts of a project and to allow an opportunity for public input to ensure informed decision-making. CEQA requires all state and local government agencies to consider the environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary authority. CEQA also requires each public agency to mitigate or avoid any significant environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of projects subject to CEQA. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim (the City) is the lead agency for the Proposed Project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City, as the lead agency for the Proposed Project, is responsible for approving the project, deciding whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration will be required for the project, and causing the document to be prepared. The subject environmental document has been prepared by Sagecrest Planning + Environmental for the Applicant, reviewed by City staff and peer-reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant (ESA Associates). 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance A Lead Agency may prepare Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project that is subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21064.5). The IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with Section 15070(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the IS/MND is to identify any potentially significant impacts Page 1 of 153 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 2 of 153 associated with the Proposed Project and incorporate mitigation measures into the Proposed Project as necessary to eliminate the potentially significant effects of the Proposed Project or to reduce the effects to a level of less than significant. 1.2 Content and Format of a Mitigated Negative Declaration The IS/MND is an informational document intended to disclose to agencies and to the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Proposed Project. This IS/MND includes the following: Section 1: Introduction: This section introduces the Proposed Project, including project background, CEQA compliance, and public review process. Section 2: Project Description: This section provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project, including the Proposed Project location, geographic and environmental setting, project characteristics, and discretionary actions related to the Proposed Project. Section 3: Initial Study Checklist: This section provides the findings that the Proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and the support for this finding. Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis: This section provides an analysis of the Proposed Project against the standards outlined in the environmental issue categories in the Initial Study checklist. The Initial Study analyzes environmental issues and concerns surrounding the Proposed Project, determines the level of significance of the Proposed Project’s environmental effects, and identifies corresponding mitigation measures to lessen potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Section 5: List of Preparers: This section provides a list of professionals who contributed to the preparation of the IS/MND. Section 6: References: This section provides a list of references used to prepare the IS/MND. 1.3 Public Review Process Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(b), the IS/MND will be available for a 20-day public review and comment period from January 10, 2019 to January 29, 2019 at the following locations: Anaheim City Hall, 1st Floor 200 S Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Central Library 500 W Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805 Sunkist Branch Library 901 S Sunkist Street Anaheim, CA 92806 In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and the interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment, as well as ways in which the significant effects of the Proposed Project would be avoided or mitigated. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 3 of 153 Comments may be made on the IS/MND in writing before the end of the comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this IS/MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the Proposed Project. Written comments on the IS/MND should be sent to the following address by January 29, 2019: City of Anaheim Attn: Nick Taylor 200 S Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 714-765-4323 njtaylor@anaheim.net Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 4 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 5 of 153 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The Proposed Project is located south of North Street and north of Wilhelmina Street, approximately 1,200 feet to the west of East Street; 480 feet to the south of La Palma Avenue (APN 035-205-01) in the City of Anaheim (City), in the northern portion of Orange County, California (Project Site). The Project Site is within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Anaheim, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle (2015). Freeway access to the Project Site is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) and SR-57, as shown in Figure 1 - Regional Vicinity Map. 2.2 Existing Project Site Conditions Setting The Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel located south of North Street and north of Wilhelmina Street, approximately 1,200 feet to the west of East Street; 480 feet to the south of La Palma Avenue, as shown in Figure 2 – Local Vicinity Map. The Project Site contains an existing asphalt surface used for recreation vehicle and auto storage. Topography on the Project Site is generally flat at approximately 167 feet above mean sea level (msl). Vehicular access to the Project Site is currently provided via an alleyway between E North Street and E Wilhelmina Street. Table 1 - Project Site Information summarizes key information related to the Project Site. Table 1 - Project Site Information Address Assessor’s Parcel Number 035-205-01 Size 1.57 acres General Plan Designation Low Density Residential Zoning Industrial Existing Use Auto and Recreational Vehicle Storage Surrounding Uses and Zoning North General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: Industrial Uses: RV and Vehicle Storage South: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: Industrial Uses: Industrial East General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential Zoning: RM-4 Uses: Multi-Family Residential West General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: RS-3 Uses: Single Family Residential Not Applicable Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 6 of 153 2.2.1 General Plan The Project Site is currently designated as Low Density Residential in the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan. The Low-Density Residential designation provides for the development of conventional single-family detached houses. It is implemented by the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 and RH-3 zones. Typical development consists of single-family lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square-feet. The permitted density range is from zero up to 6.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The Proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to re-designate the Project Site from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential. The Mid Density Residential designation provides for a wide range of residential uses, including detached, small-lot single- family homes, attached single-family homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, and townhouses. This category is implemented by the RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, and RM-3.5 zones. The permitted density range is from zero up to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. 2.2.2 Zoning The Project Site is currently within the “I” Industrial Zone, which is intended 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. Targeted industries include research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers, and manufacturing and fabrication. In some situations, other types of uses are allowed with a conditional use permit. This zone implements the Industrial land use designation in the General Plan. The Proposed Project would require a zoning reclassification of the Project Site from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM 3.5” Multiple-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RM-3.5" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe and healthy environment with multiple-family units with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of 1,600 square feet. This zone implements the Mid Density Residential and Medium Density land use designations in the General Plan. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 1: Regional Location Map Source: Google Maps Project Site Project Site Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 8 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 2: Local Vicinity Map Source: Google Maps Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 10 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project 2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses The Project Site is located adjacent to single family homes to the west and northwest, an industrial use immediately to the north, railroad tracks immediately to the west with multiple- family residential beyond, multiple-family residential to the southwest and southeast, and industrial uses immediately to the south. 2.3 Project Description The Proposed Project includes the demolition of an existing outdoor surface parking lot/storage yard and construction of 39 attached, single-family residential units. The Proposed Project utilizes the RM-3.5 standards at a density of 24.84 units/acre, and features three-story homes with entry courtyards, a private drive, fencing, sidewalks, landscaping and the public alley separating the existing single-family residential to the west. In addition, the existing alley would be widened to 20 feet per City standards and the existing sewer line in the alley would be replaced. The two and four-bedroom homes would range in size from 1,215 to 1,779 SF. All homes would have a two-car garage and there would be 28 open parking spaces, for a total of 106 spaces (2.7 parking spaces/unit, exceeding the parking requirement by 2 spaces). 2.3.1 Modifications to the Anaheim Municipal Code The provisions contained in the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) section of Chapter 18.06 Multiple-Family Residential Zones of the AMC provides for flexibility in site development standards to achieve quality design that takes into consideration the unique site constraints of infill development. The Project Site is a remnant railroad parcel currently being used for outdoor vehicle storage. The configuration of the Project Site is very long and narrow, ranging from 85 feet to 95 feet in width and 800 feet in length. The RPUD/small lot provisions of the AMC were intended to address sites like this to when proposing infill development as it would be impossible for any zoning code to address every conceivable circumstance associated with developing infill housing. The narrowness of the Project Site makes it difficult to comply some of the setbacks associated with a more traditional site, specifically, the 40-foot setback between each of the townhome buildings and the setback within 150 ft. of a single-family zone boundary (SFRZB). The proposed townhomes would be 41 feet to 43 feet from the SFRZB located on the west side of the alley. Based on the height of the proposed homes, a 55-foot setback would be required. In order to address the intent of the code, the buildings would be positioned away from the SFRZB and against the east property (railroad) line. The buildings are also designed around a central courtyard so that the townhomes side onto rather than front the SFRZB. The site design also incorporates a three-foot parkway and four-foot sidewalk within the required ten-foot landscape setback adjacent to the alley. While not standard for an alley, this greatly enhances the aesthetics by providing groundcover and trees adjacent to the alley. The Applicant is requesting a small (approximately three-foot) portion of this setback area to the east of the proposed parkway/sidewalk to be used as part of the common open space area. This is an intentional design decision to place the “courtyards” that include rec-leisure amenities such as BBQ’s, fire pits, common seating areas, etc. in front of the townhomes. This design serves to provide a buffer to the SFRZB to the west and to facilitate open space amenities proximate to the townhomes. The position of the buildings on the Project Site is dictated by the narrowness of the property and the desire to locate the buildings as far away from the SFRZB as possible. This design requires Page 11 of 153 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 12 of 153 the distance between buildings to be closer than the code standard. The design meets the intent of the AMC by using the motor courts as buffer between the buildings together with intimate landscaped courtyards to promote enclosure and privacy. 2.3.2 Project Design Features In order to address compatibility with the adjacent Railroad land use, the Proposed Project includes Project Design Features to attenuate noise and filter indoor air: Project Design Feature 1: The Property Owner/Developer shall construct six-foot high solid walls on the northern and southern property lines and between the proposed structures and the northern and southern walls on the eastern property line. The walls shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) and be free of cutouts or openings. Project Design Feature 2: The Property Owner/Developer shall provide a “windows closed” condition for each proposed residential unit. A “windows closed” condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit. Project Design Feature 3: The Property Owner/Developer shall require that all proposed residential units include a heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) unit that has an air filtration system rated at Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher. Each HVAC system shall include an additional fan unit designed to force air through the MERV filter as well as maintain positive pressure within the interior of each home. 2.3.3 Demolition The Project Site is currently used for outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. The demolition phase would consist of demolishing the existing pavement on the Project Site. An estimated total of 68,000-square feet of paved lot area would be demolished. The existing pavement was assumed to be an average of 4-inches thick and weigh 145 pounds per square foot, which results in 1,643.33 tons of pavement that would be removed from the Project Site that would require a total of 162 haul truck trips to remove. In addition, the top four to six feet of soil would be replaced with engineered fill compacted from the excavated soil. 2.3.4 Proposed Construction Upon completion of grading, the Property Owner/Developer would construct 39 residential units as shown in Figure 3 – Conceptual Site Plan. There would be 13 units each of Plan 1, Plan 2, and Plan 3 as shown in Figure 4 – Conceptual Floor Plans. There would be one three-plex and six six-plex buildings, as shown in Figure 5 – Conceptual Elevations – Three Plex and Figure 6 – Conceptual Elevations – Six Plex. The residential units would be three stories (36 ft., 4 in.) in an updated Spanish vernacular architectural style. Architectural Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 13 of 153 features would include colored concrete roof tiles, decorative iron Juliette balconies, contrasting colored shutters, decorative attic vents, window surrounds, and faux corbels. The stucco would be beige with contrasting darker bronze and brown colors for the architectural accents, garage doors and roof tiles. The Property Owner/Developer would incorporate energy efficient features to pursue Energy Star certification, which requires efficiency at 10% more efficient that required by the California Building Code. The Project Site would be improved with perimeter walls and fences, as shown in Figure 7 - Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. Along the northeastern property lines, there would be 12-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall. Along the east property line, there would be a six-foot CMU wall in between each of the buildings, as well as on the south property line, which would taper to a three-foot high CMU wall within the landscape setback. The open space plan proposes a total of 11,123 square feet of both active and passive components, as shown in Figure 8 – Conceptual Open Space Plan. The common recreation area at the north end of the Project Site would consist of a shade structure, cornhole court, BBQ counter with grill, outdoor furniture with fire pit, decorative metal screen panels and a dog waste station. The entrance to each townhome building would feature a courtyard open space that would include seating, decorative pots, BBQ (Courtyard A), fire pit (Courtyard B), decorative screen panels and arbors. The Project Site would be landscaped according to Figure 9 – Conceptual Landscape Plan and Figure 10 – Conceptual Planting Plan. Lighting would consist of decorative bronze pole lights to illuminate the entrance to the courtyards, tree accent up- lighting, and pathway lighting, as shown in Figure 11 – Conceptual Lighting Plan. Light fixtures would be designed to minimize spill onto adjacent properties. Grading on the Project Site would be performed according to Figure 12 – Conceptual Grading Plan. Utilities would be installed to serve the Project Site, including sewer, and water as shown in Figure 13 – Conceptual Sewer Plan and Figure 14 – Conceptual Water Plan. Drainage on the Project Site would remain the same as the existing condition except for in the 85th Percentile 24-hour storm. Stormwater runoff would be captured and infiltrated with a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) Detention System with the capacity to capture almost 3,900 cubic feet of the runoff volume and infiltrate within 22 hours. The post-development condition would contribute almost 2,000 cubic feet of additional runoff to the alley that discharges to East North Street than in the existing condition, which could affect the residential property to the west of the Project Site during a 25-year and 100-year storm event. However, since the capacity of the CMP Detention System is more than 3,900 cubic feet of runoff volume, the potential additional runoff to the alley would be captured on-site in the CMP Detention System, as shown in Figure 15 –Conceptual Storm Drain Plan. 2.3.5 Off-Site Improvements The alley along the western boundary of the Project Site would be widened to its full 20-foot width per City Standard, with an additional four feet of sidewalk connecting E. North Street to the north and E. Wilhelmina Street to the south of the Project Site. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 14 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 4: Floor Plans Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 4: Floor Plans Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 4: Floor Plans Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 5: Conceptual Elevation: Three Plex Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 6: Conceptual Elevation: Six Plex Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 7: Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 8: Conceptual Open Space Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 9: Conceptual Landscape Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 10: Conceptual Planting Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 11: Conceptual Lighting Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 12: Conceptual Grading Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 13: Conceptual Sewer Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 14: Conceptual Water Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Figure 15: Conceptual Storm Drain Plan Source: Sagecrest LLC Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 30 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 31 of 153 2.4 Construction Schedule The Applicant projects that construction activities for the Proposed Project would begin in Fall 2019 and expects buildout to be completed by early 2021. Construction duration is estimated to be approximately 18 months. Demolition: The Applicant projects that demolition activities would start in Fall 2019 and would take approximately two weeks to complete. Demolition would consist of removing the surface asphalt paving. Site Preparation: The Project Site is currently developed with asphalt pavement and would not require clearing and grubbing activities; therefore, site preparation activities would not be required. Grading: The grading phase would occur after completion of the demolition phase in Fall 2019 and is anticipated to take place over approximately four weeks. The proposed grading is balanced, which would result in no dirt being imported or exported from the Project Site. Building Construction: The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase in early 2020 and is anticipated to take place over approximately 11 months. Paving: The paving of the interior drive aisles would occur after the completion of the building construction phase in late 2020 and would take approximately four weeks. Application of Architectural Coatings: The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase and is anticipated to take place over approximately four weeks in early 2021. Although the paving and architectural coating phases are projected to occur consecutively after the completion of the building construction phase, it is possible that all three phases may occur concurrently. 2.5 Discretionary Actions The Applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlements for the Proposed Project: •General Plan Amendment (GPA2018-00524) to change the Project Site’s existing General Plan Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential. •Reclassification (RCL2018-00317) to change the Project Site's existing zoning from I (Industrial) to RM-3.5 (Multiple-Family Residential). •Conditional Use Permit (CUP2018-05980) to permit 39 attached, single-family residential units on approximately 1.57 acres with modified building and landscape setbacks on the east property line, modified setbacks between buildings, modified setbacks to the Single Family Residential Zone Boundary to the west, inclusion of the three-foot parkway and four-foot sidewalk within the required 10-foot landscape setback from the alley, and a seven-foot reduction of the required 10-foot landscape setback for parking spaces and Recreational-Leisure common space area. •Tentative Tract Map (TTM18182) to create fee lots for the residential units, and common lots for the private streets and other common areas for future development of 39 attached, single-family residential units and the associated parking and landscape areas. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 32 of 153 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST PROJECT AND CASE NUMBERS: Development Project No. 2017-00124 General Plan Amendment No. 2018-00524, Reclassification No. 2018-00317 Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-05980, Tentative Tract Map No. 18182 SITE ADDRESS: APN 035-205-01 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Anaheim 39 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Anaheim 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner 714-765-4323 njtaylor@anaheim.net PROJECT LOCATION: Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: 740 E La Palma, LLC 2390 E Orangewood Avenue, Suite 510 Anaheim, CA 92806 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: Industrial PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project includes the demolition of an existing outdoor surface parking lot/storage yard and construction of 39 attached, single-family residential units. The Proposed Project utilizes the RM-3.5 standards at a density of 24.84 units/acre, and features three-story homes with entry courtyards, a private drives, fencing, sidewalks and landscaping separating the existing single-family residential to the west. The Applicant is proposing the following setback modifications: three feet from the east property line to the buildings where 15 feet would be required; three feet of landscape setback from the east property line where five feet would be required; 24 feet between buildings where 40 feet would be required; 41 feet from the Single Family Residential Zone to the west where 55 feet would be required; inclusion of the three-foot parkway and four-foot sidewalk within the required 10-foot landscape setback from the alley; and a seven-foot reduction of the required 10-foot landscape setback for parking spaces and Recreational-Leisure common space area. In addition, the existing alley would be widened to 20 feet per City standards and the existing sewer line in the alley would be replaced. The two and four-bedroom homes would range in size from 1,215 to 1,779 SF. All homes would have a two-car garage and there would be 28 open parking spaces, for a total of 106 spaces (2.7 parking spaces/unit, exceeding the parking requirement by 2 spaces). PROJECT SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Project Site is located adjacent to single family homes to the west and northwest, an industrial use immediately to the north, railroad tracks immediately to the east with multiple- family residential beyond, multiple-family residential to the southwest and southeast, and industrial uses immediately to the south. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED: N/A Page 33 of 153 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 34 of 153 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Proposed Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. None of the environmental factors are checked because the Proposed Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. ☐Aesthetics ☐Agriculture & Forestry Resources ☐Air Quality ☐Biological Resources ☐Cultural Resources ☐Geology/Soils ☐Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐Hydrology/Water Quality ☐Land Use/Planning ☐Mineral Resources ☐Noise ☐Paleontological Resources ☐ Population/Housing ☐Public Services ☐Recreation ☐Transportation/Traffic ☐Tribal Cultural Resources ☐Utilities/Service Systems ☐Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 Determination: Based on 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. _____________________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date _____________________________________________ _______________________ Printed Name/Title Phone Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 35 of 153 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, 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 EIR is required. b)Less than Significant with 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 CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(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. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 36 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 37 of 153 4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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?☐☐☐☒ 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?☐☐☒☐ 4.1.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact: A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public. The Project Site is generally flat and is surrounded by single-family and multiple-family residential uses. The General Plan Green Element identifies the Hill and Canyon Area, the Santa Ana Mountains, golf courses, and the Santa Ana River as visual amenities 1, none of which are visible from the Project Site, nor does the Proposed Project obstruct views of these visual amenities from surrounding properties. The proposed height of the buildings would be consistent with the height of the surrounding land uses Therefore, potential impacts associated with a scenic vista would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b)Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact: The Project Site is currently occupied by an outdoor vehicle storage lot on asphalt pavement. The nearest state scenic highway is State Route 91, east of SR-55 through the Anaheim Hills area to the eastern City boundary, which is approximately 4.5 miles directly east with intervening urban development. The Project Site does not contain any scenic resources, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. c)Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is an industrial use located in a single-family and multiple-family residential neighborhood bisected by railroad tracks immediately to the east of 1 http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/E-Green-Element?bidId= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project the Project Site. The Proposed Project would replace outdoor vehicle storage with a residential use that is in greater alignment with the existing visual character of the surrounding area than the current use. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d)Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is for the construction of 39 attached, single-family residential units. The Project Site is located adjacent to existing single-family and multiple-family homes. Construction of 39 residential units would primarily emit nighttime lighting from security lighting and residential interior lighting. Existing sources of light on the Project Site include nighttime security lighting. The amount of lighting generated by the Proposed Project would be like that used in the surrounding areas. Residential uses on the Project Site would result in less than significant increases in nighttime light or glare as the Proposed Project is replacing an existing industrial use in an urbanized neighborhood. The Proposed Project would use typical residential construction materials such a wood, stucco and glass, and would not use reflective materials that would result in glare. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Proposed Project would be subject to building code requirements that include an assessment of exterior lighting plans to ensure lighting fixtures are shielded to prevent light spill. With the residential nature of the Proposed Project and the approval of lighting plans, there would be no new or increase in significant impacts related to lighting and glare. The lighting plan would be subject to building code requirements Therefore, potential impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Aesthetics apply to the Proposed Project. 4.1.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Aesthetics would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Page 38 of 153 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 39 of 153 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 4.2.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact: According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland map database,2 the Proposed Project is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Project Site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impacts associated with farmland would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact: The Proposed Project is zoned Industrial and not located on parcels zoned for agricultural use. There are no existing agricultural uses on the Project Site. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Program map 3 , the Project Site is not 2 ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/ora14.pdf 3 State of California Williamson Act Contract Land; see: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/2016%20Statewide%20Map/WA_2016_11X17.pdf Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 40 of 153 located on or adjacent to lands under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts associated with agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact: Public Resources Code 12220 (g) defines forestland as that which “can support 10- percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” CA Government Code 51104 (g) identifies a timberland production zone as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses.” The Project Site is located within an urbanized area, and is not located near or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land or timberland would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact: The Project Site is currently paved with asphalt and used for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. The Project Site does not contain any forestland. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land would occur. e) Would the project 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? No Impact: The Project Site is currently paved with asphalt and used for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers and does not contain any farmland or forestland. The construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the conversation of farmland to non- agricultural use or the conversation of forestland to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land or timberland would occur. 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Services apply to the Proposed Project. 4.2.3 Conclusion There would be no impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Agriculture and Forestry Services and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 41 of 153 4.3 Air Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to air quality associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis, Downtown Anaheim 39 Project, Vista Environmental, July 2018). The results of the analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. The Project Site is located within the north central part of Orange County in the City of Anaheim, in Air Monitoring Area 17 of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) that includes all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The Basin has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a federal non- attainment area for ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and partial non-attainment for lead. Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQS) standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and respirable particulate matter (PM10). The Basin has been designated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a non-attainment area for Ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Currently, the South Coast Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, NO2, SO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control within the Basin. SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. Regional Air Quality Dispersed mobile sources are the dominant pollution generators in the Basin, and many air quality impacts that derive from these occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 42 of 153 ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. A regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 2 – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance. Table 2 - SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf Local Air Quality Project-related construction air emissions may potentially exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. The SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to assess project-related air emissions within the vicinity of a Project Site. The Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the Project Site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 3 - SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, and PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities for the Proposed Project. Table 3 - SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction 81 485 4 3 Operation 81 485 1 1 Notes: 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are single family homes located 20 feet (6 meters) west of the Project Site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for five acres in Central Orange County. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 43 of 153 Toxic Air Contaminants According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants more than the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: • If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or • Toxic air contaminants from the Proposed Project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. In order to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the Proposed Project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the Project Site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility-wide health risk assessment (HRA). Odor Impacts The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the Proposed Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.” If the Proposed Project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then it would create a significant odor impact. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 44 of 153 4.3.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact: The applicable air quality plan for the Proposed Project is the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project build out and phase. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Short-term construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance presented in Table 4 and Table 5 (Section 4.3.b) The ongoing operation of the Proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the frequency or severity of violations would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG, are based in part on the City’s General Plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by SCAG, to determine priority transportation projects and determine vehicle miles traveled within the SCAG region. The Proposed Project is less than 500 units and is not considered regionally significant per CEQA Section 15206(b)(2)(A). Because the Proposed Project is not regionally significant, changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections because of the Proposed Project do not have the potential to substantially affect SCAG’s demographic projections and the assumptions in SCAQMD’s AQMP. The City of Anaheim General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 45 of 153 The General Plan designates the Project Site for Low Density (0-6.5 dwelling units per acre) Residential land use. The Project Site is located within the “I” Zone. The Proposed Project consists of the development of 39 residential units on a 1.57-acre Project Site, which would result in a density of 24.84 dwelling units per acre. As such, the Proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation for the Project Site to the Mid Density (0-27 dwelling units per acre) Residential land use designation and the zoning to the “RM 3.5” Multiple-Family Residential Zone, which requires a minimum 1,600 square feet site per dwelling unit. Although the Proposed Project is currently inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site, it would be generally consistent with the adjacent multi-family residential land uses to the east, consisting of 88 apartments on 1.61 acres, which are developed at a density of 54 du/ac, and would be in substantial compliance with the Land Use Element goals and policies as discussed in Section 4.10 – Land Use and Planning. Therefore, due to the Proposed Project’s nominal size and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, it would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designations with respect to the regional forecasts utilized by the AQMPs. Furthermore, the Proposed Project consists of an infill residential development in an area of Southern California that has a shortage of housing. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, potential impacts associated with implementation of the AQMP would occur and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact: The potential air emissions from construction and operations of the Proposed Project were analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts, as well as potential toxic air impacts (Appendix A). The Proposed Project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction activities for the Proposed Project would include demolition of 68,000-square feet of paved area, grading of the 1.57-acre Project Site, building construction of 39 residential units, paving of on-site parking areas and driveways, and application of architectural coatings. The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Regional Impacts CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the Proposed Project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Appendix A, Section 7.1. The worst-case summer or winter daily Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 46 of 153 construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project for each phase of construction activities are shown in Table 4 - Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently, Table 4 also shows the combined criteria pollutant emissions from building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. The air quality analysis in Appendix A uses typical emission rates from construction activities of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. None of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, potential impacts associated with regional air quality during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 4 - Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition1 On-site2 2.30 22.68 14.89 0.02 2.66 1.41 Off-site3 0.22 5.59 1.85 0.02 0.49 0.15 Total 2.52 28.27 16.74 0.04 3.15 1.56 Grading1 On-site 1.42 16.04 6.61 0.01 2.65 1.66 Off-site 0.06 0.71 0.47 0.00 0.13 0.04 Total 1.48 16.75 7.08 0.01 2.78 1.70 Building Construction On-site 2.27 15.98 13.49 0.02 0.92 0.88 Off-site 0.21 1.02 1.63 0.01 0.50 0.14 Total 2.48 17.0 15.12 0.03 1.42 1.02 Paving On-site 0.91 8.45 8.88 0.01 0.47 0.43 Off-site 0.06 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.04 Total 0.97 8.48 9.31 0.01 0.62 0.47 Architectural Coatings On-site 12.79 1.68 1.83 0.00 0.11 0.11 Off-site 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.09 0.02 Total 12.82 1.70 2.09 0.00 0.20 0.13 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 16.27 27.18 26.52 0.04 2.56 1.94 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 On-site emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 47 of 153 Local Impacts Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD, revised October 2009. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. To determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD to readily determine if the daily on-site emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 5 - Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated localized emissions thresholds. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently, Table 5 also shows the combined local criteria pollutant emissions from building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 5 Shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds for any phase of construction, or for the combined building construction, paving, and architectural phases. Therefore, potential impacts associated with local air quality from construction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 5 - Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition1 22.68 14.89 2.66 1.41 Grading1 16.04 6.61 2.65 1.66 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 26.11 24.20 1.50 1.42 - Building Construction 15.98 13.49 0.92 0.88 - Paving 8.45 8.88 0.47 0.43 - Architectural Coatings 1.68 1.83 0.11 0.11 SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet)2 81 485 4 3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor are single-family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) west of the Project Site. According to the LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 48 of 153 Operational Emissions The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated vehicle trips and through operational emissions from the on-going use of the Proposed Project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts associated with regional air quality, and local air quality impacts associated with the on-going operations of the Proposed Project. Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters detailed in Appendix A, Section 7.1. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Proposed Project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized in Table 6 – Regional Operational Air Pollution Emissions. Table 6 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, potential impacts associated with regional air quality from operation would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 6 - Regional Operational Air Pollution Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 0.95 0.04 3.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 Energy Usage2 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources3 0.33 1.38 4.60 0.02 1.55 0.42 Total Emissions 1.29 1.53 7.87 0.02 1.58 0.45 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage (excluding hearths). 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The Proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 49 of 153 CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the Proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, potential long-term local air quality impacts associated with the on- going use of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from On-site Operations Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and on-site usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 7 - Local Operations Criteria Pollutant Emission Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptors shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 7 shows that the ongoing operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, potential impacts associated with local air quality due to on-site emissions from ongoing operations would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 50 of 153 Table 7 - Local Operations Criteria Pollutant Emission Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) On-site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.04 3.22 0.02 0.02 Energy Usage 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.01 On-site Vehicle Emissions1 0.17 0.58 0.19 0.05 Total Emissions 0.32 3.85 0.22 0.08 SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet)2 81 485 1 1 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 On-site vehicle emissions based on 1/8 of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions occurring within a quarter mile of the Project Site. 2 The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) west of the Project Site. According to the LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one acre in Air Monitoring Area 17, Central Orange County. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not 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). Cumulative projects include proposed or approved local development as well as general ambient growth within the project area. The greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the Proposed Project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The project area is out of attainment for ozone and PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts. • Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations; • Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and • Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants. Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds Construction-Related Impacts The Project Site is in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated by the EPA for federal standards as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and by CARB for the state standards as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project have been calculated Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 51 of 153 in Section 4.3(b). The analysis found that development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during construction. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with construction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Operational-Related Impacts The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Air Basin would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions created from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project have been calculated in Section 4.3(b). The analysis found that development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with long-term emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Consistency with Air Quality Plans As discussed in Section 4.3(a), the Project Site is currently designated as Residential – Low Density (0-6.5 dwelling units per acre) in the General Plan and is zoned Industrial (I). The Proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change to change the General Plan to Mid Density Residential (0-27 dwelling units per acre) and to change the zoning to RM 3.5 Multiple-Family Residential Zone. Although the Proposed Project is currently inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site, it would be consistent with the adjacent multi-family residential land uses to the east, south, southwest and southeast and would be in substantial compliance with the Land Use Element goals and policies, as discussed in Section 4.10 – Land Use and Planning. Therefore, due to the Proposed Project’s nominal size and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, it would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designations with respect to the regional forecasts utilized by the AQMPs. Furthermore, the Proposed Project consists of an infill residential development in an area of Southern California that has a shortage of housing. Cumulative Health Impacts The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis detailed in Section 4.3(b) found that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, potential cumulative health impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 52 of 153 Summary Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operations emissions and would be consistent with the AQMP for the Basin. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the Project Site, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated in Section 4.3(b) for both construction and operations. The discussion also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are single-family residences as near as 20 feet (6 meters) west of the Project Site. Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The analysis in Section 4.3(b) found that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant construction-related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminants The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator can purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator can purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 53 of 153 construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions. Local criteria pollutant impacts from on-site operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. No local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from On-site Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the Proposed Project would occur from on- site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and on-site usage of natural gas appliances. Operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips generated by the proposed residential project, potential toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Summary Potential impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 54 of 153 e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations. Construction-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project Site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, potential impacts associated with odors would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Odor Impacts The Proposed Project would consist of the development of 39 residential units. Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would primarily occur from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project Site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 and City trash storage regulations, potential for impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Summary Operation of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new sources of odors to the project vicinity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Air Quality apply to the Proposed Project. 4.3.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Air Quality would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 55 of 153 4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 4.4.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: The Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel in an urbanized area of Anaheim that is surrounded by residential and industrial development, including a railroad line to the immediate east of the Project Site. The Project Site is entirely paved with asphalt and there is no existing vegetation on the Project Site, including trees, bushes, etc. The Project Site has no capacity to support any species of plants or wildlife that would be identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, no impact associated with special status species of plants or wildlife would occur. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 56 of 153 b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: Riparian habitat is composed of the trees and other vegetation and physical features normally found on the stream banks and flood plains associated with streams, lakes, or other bodies of water. The City of Anaheim is largely urbanized; however, there are a few remaining areas of natural habitat However, the Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel in an urbanized area of Anaheim that is surrounded by residential and industrial development, including a railroad line to the immediate east of the Project Site. The Project Site is entirely paved with asphalt and there is no existing body of water on the Project Site that would support riparian habitat. Therefore, no impact associated with riparian habitat would occur. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact: Wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” (WoUS), are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). WoUS include navigable coastal and inland waters; lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries; interstate waters and their tributaries; wetlands adjacent to such waters; intermittent streams; and other waters that could affect interstate commerce. The Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel in an urbanized area of Anaheim that is surrounded by residential and industrial development, including a railroad line to the immediate east of the Project Site. The Project Site is entirely paved with asphalt and there is no existing body of water on the Project Site that would support federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impacts associated with federally protected wetlands would occur. d) Would the project 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? No Impact: The Project Site is located within an existing urbanized area consisting of residential and industrial developments. The most significant area near the Project Site that has the potential to serve as a wildlife corridor is the Santa Ana River, located approximately 2.6 miles east of the Project Site, which is considered a regional movement corridor for wildlife. The Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel in an urbanized area of Anaheim that is surrounded by residential and industrial development, including a railroad line to the immediate east of the Project Site. The Project Site is entirely paved with asphalt and there is no existing vegetation or body of water on the Project Site that would support any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, no impact associated with the substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites would occur. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 57 of 153 e)Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact: The Project Site is a 1.57-acre parcel in an urbanized area of Anaheim that is surrounded by residential and industrial development, including a railroad line to the immediate east of the Project Site. The Project Site is entirely paved with asphalt and there are no existing biological resources on the Project Site that would be subject to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts associated with biological resources resulting from conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or the City’s tree preservation policy would occur. f)Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan Green Element, the portion of the City generally south of SR-91 and east of SR-55 falls within the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The Project Site is not within the NCCP area.4 Therefore, no impacts associated with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved conservation plan would occur. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Biological Resources apply to the Proposed Project. 4.4.3 Conclusion There would be no impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Biological Resources and no mitigation would be required. 4 City of Anaheim Parcel Info, Zoning; see: https://gis.anaheim.net/PropertyInfo/?APN=03520501 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 58 of 153 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5 and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)? ☐☐☐☒ b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?☐☒ ☐☐ c)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?☐☐☒☐ Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches were completed to determine potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix B – Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, VCS Environmental, October 2018). Sagecrest conducted a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission, and the City concluded tribal consultation per AB52, as discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources (Appendix C – Sacred Lands File Search and AB52 Tribal Consultation, Sagecrest Planning & Environmental, October 2018). 4.5.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact: The Project Site is currently used for outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. There are no existing structures on the Project Site. The Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches included a historical records search conducted at the South- Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on October 1, 2018, which included the Project Site and a ½-mile radius around the project boundaries. According to the results of the records search, there are no resources within the Project Site, and ten recorded resources within a ½-mile radius. Nine of the resources are structures, and one is the adjacent railroad tracks. None of the resources are subterranean. However, the Proposed Project would be limited to the boundaries of the Project Site and would not result in any alterations to the previously recorded historical resources. Therefore, no impacts associated with a historical resource would occur. b)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project Site is currently used for outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers in an urbanized area along an existing railroad track. Thus, the Project Site is considered to have low sensitivity for prehistoric and archaeological deposits. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 59 of 153 Sagecrest Planning & Environmental requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 14, 2018. The NAHC responded on September 24, 2018 indicating that the results were negative, however, the NAHC provided a list of Native American tribes to contact for further information. Sagecrest contacted each of the tribes by electronic mail on October 17, 2018. Further details pertaining to tribal cultural resources, Native American tribal consultation, and the Proposed Project’s compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) are in Section 4.18(b). Due to the historic use of the Project Site as an outdoor storage facility with no structures having been built on the Project Site, there is little potential for the inadvertent discovery of intact subsurface archaeological deposits. In consideration of the negative results of the SCCIC records search, NAHC Sacred Lands File search, and reconnaissance-level survey, there is a low potential for buried, unrecorded cultural resources to be encountered during construction activities. However, there remains the possibility that undiscovered buried archaeological resources might be encountered during construction. Therefore, MM CUL-1 would require that prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the plans that in the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources) during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet would be halted until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee, to analyze the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the archaeologist and/or Native American tribal representative(s) determine that the find is significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation or resource recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. With implementation of MM CUL-1, potential impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant. c)Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact: Due to the level of past disturbance in the project area, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. However, in the unexpected event human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). According to the provisions in CEQA, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to insure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The Construction Contractor shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98 (State of California 2006). If human remains are found during grading, all work in the immediate Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 60 of 153 area (a radius of at least 100 feet) shall stop, and all parties shall follow all applicable state laws regarding human remains. If the remains are Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the Project Site within 48 hours of being allowed access to the Project Site and shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Therefore, potential impacts associated with human remains would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations and procedures outlined in the CHSC and the CCR and no mitigation would be required. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the plans that in the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources) during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet would be halted until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee, to analyze the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the archaeologist and/or Native American tribal representative(s) determine that the find is significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation or resource recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and/or tribal group. 4.5.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Cultural Resources would be less than significant with implementation of MM CUL-1. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 61 of 153 4.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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 Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2016), creating substantial risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ A Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation and Percolation Study was completed to determine potential impacts to geology and soils associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix D – Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation and Percolation Study, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., January 2018). 4.6.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact: No known active faults are known to project through the Project Site nor does the Project Site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the Project Site is considered low. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 62 of 153 The nearest zoned fault is the Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) fault located approximately 1.96 miles to the north. Although the Project Site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, it is in a seismically active area of Southern California. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards that may affect the Project Site are dependent on both the distance to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event. Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along regional active faults do exist and are accounted for in the design and construction of the proposed structures. The residential structures proposed for the Project Site would be constructed to the standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), as amended by the City, which would reduce risks associated with seismic activity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with people or structures from a surface rupture would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.6(a)(i), the Project Site is in a seismically active area of Southern California that has been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered low, ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along regional active faults are accounted for in the design and construction of the proposed structures. The Project Site lies within relatively proximity to several active faults and would likely experience similar moderate to occasionally high levels of shaking from these faults as well as some background shaking from other seismically active parts of the Southern California region. The Proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, as amended by the City, which would reduce risks associated with seismic activity. Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from seismic ground shaking would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact: The geotechnical study for the Proposed Project evaluated the potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, at the Project Site. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to increasing pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine- to medium-grained, cohesion-less soils. Based on the results of the geotechnical study, the Project Site has a historical high groundwater at a depth greater than 50 feet below the Project Site, and according to the California Geologic Survey and Figure S-3 in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located in an area of liquefaction potential. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer of the Proposed Project would be required to submit grading and foundation plans to the City for review to demonstrate compliance with the City’s grading requirements (AMC 17.04) as well as any applicable recommendations contained in the geotechnical study. The Proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, as amended by the City, which would reduce risks associated with liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from liquefaction shaking would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 63 of 153 iv) Landslides? No Impact: Landslides result from the downward movement of earth or rock materials that have been influenced by gravity. In general, landslides occur due to various factors including steep slope conditions, erosion, rainfall, groundwater, adverse geologic structure, and grading impacts. According to Figure S-2 in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located in an area of landslide potential. Furthermore, as shown in Figure S-3 of the Safety Element, the Project Site is not located in an area with the potential for earthquake-induced landslides. There are no significant slopes located on or near the Project Site, and no significant slopes are proposed as part of the project design. Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is currently used for outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. Construction activity associated with development may result in wind driven soil erosion and loss of topsoil due to grading activities. However, all construction and grading activities would comply with City’s grading ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.04) using BMPs, including the use of fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would implement BMPs to control project runoff and protect water quality, which would limit operational impacts because of the Proposed Project. Upon project completion, the Project Site would be developed with residential units, paved surfaces, and landscaping, which would prevent substantial erosion from occurring. Therefore, potential impacts associated with soil erosion would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact: Seismically-induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Lateral spreading results in near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. A gentle slope in the ground face or the presence of a slope face nearby can cause the ground to slide or spread on layers of liquefied soil. The Project Site is generally flat and there is no slope. The Project Site is not located in an area of landslide potential. However, the results of the geotechnical study indicated that in general, all existing artificial fills and the upper weathered/disturbed near-surface alluvium are considered unsuitable in their existing condition to support proposed structural fills and site improvements. Based on the subsurface exploration, these materials range from four to six feet in thickness across the Project Site. These materials should be removed from below future building sites, retaining walls, screen walls, pavement, and any other “structural” areas, and replaced as engineered compacted fill. The actual depth of removal should be determined by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Removals should Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 64 of 153 extend laterally beyond the limits of the proposed structure no less than five feet or distance equal to the depth of removal (i.e. 1:1 projection) if the removals are greater than five feet. For grading along property lines, removal of unsuitable materials would be limited by the existence of off-site improvements. As such, future grading along the margins of the Project Site would need to be performed in such a manner as to not adversely impact adjacent existing improvements. Where removals for future residential improvements are limited by existing improvements or property lines, special grading techniques such as slot cutting, shoring or other acceptable design criteria may be required. Under such conditions, specific recommendations should be provided during review of final grading plan. Construction of perimeter walls would likely require deepened footings or caissons and grade beams where removals are restricted by property boundaries. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to adhere to the findings of the geotechnical study, the final grading plan per AMC 17.04, and the CBC. Therefore, potential impacts associated with unstable soils, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and collapse would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2016), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the USCS visual manual classification and the laboratory test results in the geotechnical study, the near-surface soils within the Project Site are generally anticipated to possess a Low expansion potential. Additional testing for soil expansion may be required after rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete work to confirm these conditions. The Proposed Project would be constructed to the recommendations in the geotechnical study and to the standards prescribed by the CBC, as amended by the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with expansive and corrosive soils would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact: The Project Site is served by a public sewer system. As part of the Proposed Project, the existing 6” sewer line in the alley would be abandoned and removed and replaced with a new 8” sewer line when the alley is improved to City standards. The Proposed Project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts associated with soils incapable of disposing waste water would occur. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Geology and Soils apply to the Proposed Project. 4.6.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Geology and Soils would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 65 of 153 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to air quality associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis, Downtown Anaheim 39 Project, Vista Environmental, July 2018). The results of the analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. 4.7.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact: The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A) analyzed greenhouse gas emissions to determine potential impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Project. To identify significance criteria for GHG emissions for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential land use type projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of this threshold, as of March 2018, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds. Originally SCAQMD had stated that they were waiting to approve the Working Group’s thresholds dependent on the outcome of the State Supreme Court decision of the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which was filed on December 17, 2015. However, since that court decision has been decided for some time now, the most likely time for the SCAQMD Board to consider the Working Group thresholds would be in combination with the consideration of the updated CEQA Air Quality Handbook that is currently being revised by SCAQMD staff. To provide a conservative analysis, the Working Group’s draft thresholds have been utilized. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the Proposed Project would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 66 of 153 The City utilizes the SCAQMD as guidance for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would utilize SCAQMD’s GHG emission threshold to determine significant impacts. The Proposed Project would result in the development of 39 attached, single-family residential units and associated parking facilities. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The Air Quality/GHG Analysis uses CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 to calculate the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project. A summary of the results is shown in Table 8 - Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions, which shows that the Proposed Project would create 397.63 MTCO2e of GHG emissions per year, which is within SCAQMD’s draft threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a global climate change would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 8 - Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year 2021 Emissions Area Sources1 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.67 Energy Usage2 139.40 0.01 0.00 139.73 Mobile Sources3 281.79 0.01 0.00 282.08 Solid Waste4 3.64 0.22 0.00 9.02 Water and Wastewater5 36.43 0.08 0.00 39.14 Construction6 9.35 0.00 0.00 9.39 Total 2021 Emissions 388.87 0.32 0.00 397.63 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. b)Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact: The applicable plans for the Proposed Project consist of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan: Sustainable Electric & Water Initiatives (GHG Reduction Plan), City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, July 2015, and the SCAQMD Working Group’s draft GHG thresholds. City of Anaheim The GHG Reduction Plan provides reduction targets for energy usage, photovoltaic (PV) rooftop installations, and use of electric vehicles. For energy usage, the GHG Reduction Plan provides a target of a 15 percent reduction by 2020 and a 30 percent reduction by 2030 of the energy utilized by homes in Anaheim. This target would be met through application of State regulations including CCR Title 24, Part 6. The 2016 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 67 of 153 Title 24 Building Standards, which are currently in effect require a variety of energy efficiency measures to be installed on new homes that would reduce energy usage by more than 15 percent over the prior 2013 Title 24 Building Standards. New Title 24 Building Standards are anticipated to be released in 2019 and the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards are required to meet a zero-net energy goal. Therefore, through implementation of the State regulations the Proposed Project would meet the energy use reduction targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan. For PV rooftop installations, the GHG Reduction Plan provides a target of 27,000 kW of PV systems installed by 2020 and 37,000 kW of PV systems installed by 2030. This target would be met through application of State regulations including Title 24, Part 6. The 2016 Title 24 Building Standards require that new homes are constructed to be solar ready to facilitate the installation of rooftop solar systems. This requirement is typically met through structural design to ensure that rooftops are designed to handle the weight of PV systems and through installation of electrical conduit from the main circuit panel area to the roof. New Title 24 Building Standards are anticipated to be released in 2019 and in May 2018 the CEC has approved regulations that would require that the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards would require all new homes include rooftop PV systems. Therefore, through implementation of the State regulations the Proposed Project would meet the PV rooftop installation targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan. For electric vehicles, the GHG Reduction Plan provides a target of 2,000 low or zero emission vehicles by 2020 and 5,000 low or zero emission vehicles by 2030. This target would be met through application of State regulations including CCR Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen) Building Standards, where Section 4.106.4 of the current 2016 standards require that all new residential projects to install an electrical system to all new residential garages to facilitate future installation and use of an electric vehicle charging station. Therefore, through implementation of the State and SCAQMD regulations, the Proposed Project would meet the electric vehicle usage targets provided in the GHG Reduction Plan Development of the Proposed Project would meet the targets outlined in the GHG Reduction Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with the GHG Reduction Plan reduction targets and would not conflict with the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. SCAQMD As discussed in Section 4.7(a), the current version of SCAQMD’s draft GHG emissions thresholds recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for residential land use projects. This threshold has not been formally adopted because the SCAQMD was awaiting the outcome of the State Supreme Court decision of the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which was filed on December 17, 2015. SCAQMD Board has not yet approved the draft GHG emission thresholds since the decision was released. According to the GHG emissions calculations in Section 4.7(a), implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of 397.63 MTCO2e per year. GHG emissions resulting from operations of the Proposed Project would be below SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 68 of 153 Development of the Proposed Project would meet the targets outlined in the GHG Reduction Plan and meet SCAQMD’s bright line threshold. Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions apply to the Proposed Project. 4.7.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Greenhouse Gas Emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 69 of 153 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and noxious odors)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Phase II Investigation was completed to determine potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials associated with the development of the Project Site. (Appendix E – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Limited Phase II Investigation, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. January 2018). The Phase I ESA found no evidence of the use of reportable quantities of hazardous substances, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or underground storage tanks (USTs) such as fill ports, piping, Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 70 of 153 or vent pipes on the Project Site. According to review of available aerial photography, the Project Site appeared to be an unpaved vacant lot with railroad tracks (spur) located on the west side of the Project Site from at least 1938 to 1995. Surrounding properties were agriculturally developed and later developed with existing residential properties. In 1997, the Project Site was developed as paved parking lot as part of recreational vehicle storage as seen today. Surrounding properties consist of railroad tracks to the east, residential properties to the east beyond the railroad and west, and paved storage areas to the north and south. The Project Site is not identified in the regulatory database report and no potential vapor intrusion concerns were identified on-site. According to information obtained from the State Water Resources Control online database, GeoTracker, for an adjacent release (Case Number T0605902230 – 770 North East Street) and topographic map interpretation, groundwater near the Project Site is present at depths of approximately 85 feet below ground surface (bgs) and flows toward the southwest. On December 21, 2017, the geotechnical engineering consultant (Albus-Keefe & Associates) collected soil samples from three boring locations (B-1, B-2, and B-3) at depths of 1.0 and 4.0 feet bgs to evaluate the potential for petroleum hydrocarbons and metal impacts to the subsurface from the historical railroad spur. TPH was not detected, lead was present at concentrations below the residential screening criteria, and arsenic slightly exceeded the residential screening criteria, which is likely due to its former use as a railroad spur along the railroad track. Since the land would be graded and the future development would prevent exposure to the subsurface by future residents, further evaluation of the subsurface and special handling of the soil does not appear to be warranted. The Phase I ESA did not find any recognized environmental conditions (REC), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC), or historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC). Environmental issues identified during the Phase I ESA were • The uncertainty if the railroad tracks from the rail spur were removed prior to paving, and if not, they should be properly removed if discovered during demolition; and • As expected in soil near a railroad, lead and arsenic are present in shallow soil. Based on the soil sampling results, further evaluation and special handling of the soil does not appear to be warranted. The Phase I ESA did not reveal evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project Site and no further assessment was recommended. 4.8.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is currently used for outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. The Phase I ESA included a search for regulatory records associated with the Project Site and none were identified. The Phase I ESA found traces of lead that were below residential screening levels, and arsenic that was slightly elevated levels above residential screening levels due to its proximity to the railroad track. However, the surface soils to be removed, as recommended in the Geotechnical Study (Appendix D), would be re- Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 71 of 153 compacted as engineered fill and would result in no exposure of contaminated soils to the future residents of the Proposed Project. During the demolition and construction phases of the Proposed Project, the transport of demolition and construction waste for disposal could result in accidental release of hazardous materials. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. The disposal of all demolition waste would be conducted in accordance with current regulations. According to the Phase I ESA, no USTs, ASTs, wastewater treatment facilities or septic systems were observed or reported on the Project Site. However, if any are discovered during demolition and/or construction they would be removed and disposed of in accordance with current regulations. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the Project Site post- construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure. Therefore, potential impacts to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant. As discussed in Section 4.8(a), the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses would reduce the potential for exposure. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the Project Site post-construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials would reduce the potential for exposure. Therefore, potential impacts to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile of the Proposed Project. The closest school sites are Sycamore Junior High School, located approximately 1.6 miles to the east, and Mann Elementary School, located approximately one mile to the west. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with all applicable Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 72 of 153 federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses would reduce the potential for exposure of any school in proximity to the Project Site to hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts associated with an existing or proposed school within one-quarter mile of the Project Site through emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact: Based on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Site/Facility Search 5 , the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Project Site was not identified in the database search as a site of environmental concern. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites to the public or the environment would occur. 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? No Impact: The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.6 The closest public use airports are John Wayne Airport located 12 miles to the south, and Fullerton Municipal Airport located six miles to the northwest. The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because of its proximity to a public airport. Therefore, no impacts associated with public use airports would occur. 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? No Impact: The Proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest heliport is located at Kaiser Permanente Hospital located 3.75 miles east of the Project Site 7. Therefore, no impacts related to safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area would occur. 5 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=035-205-01 6 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Airport Planning Areas, certified 7/21/05; see: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/airportlu.pdf 7 http://www.city-data.com/airports/Anaheim-California.html Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 73 of 153 g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact: The Proposed Project would not substantially change the way emergency access is provided to the Project Site via North Pauline Street, East North Street, or East Wilhelmina Street. The closest emergency services facility is Fire Station 5 located approximately two miles east of the Project Site on East La Palma Avenue, just west of SR-57. The proposed internal street system meets the turning radii and street width requirements of the Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department and City of Anaheim Standard Plans and Details 115, 131, and 473. These adopted standards would ensure adequate access within the Project Site for emergency response or evacuation plan. In addition, as part of the plan check process, the Project Site plan would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department (AFR) and Anaheim Police Department (APD) to ensure adequate infrastructure for emergency response and access. Therefore, no impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. h) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is in a highly urbanized area and is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to Figure S-5, Fire Protection Areas in the City’s General Plan Safety Element. As part of the plan check process, the Project Site plan would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the AFR and would be required to comply with all fire regulations applicable to the project area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildland fires would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and noxious odors)? No Impact: The Project Site is generally flat and impervious as an asphalt-paved surface storage lot. Residential development on the Project Site would introduce landscaped pervious areas typical of a residential development. The proposed Best Management Practice for water quality treatment is designed to treat first runoff for the entire Project Site in a Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) detention System (85th percentile storm event) (Appendix G). The Project Site would have catch basins around each building that would be connected to the CMP Detention System. The CMP Detention System would be designed to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, primarily from rooftops and another impervious area. The catch-basin inserts would be used as pre- treatment to remove hydrocarbons, trash, and sediments from stormwater runoff. Once the system is at its capacity, the runoff from the Project Site would sheet flow to the Alley. The stormwater treatment control system would be typical of a residential development in an urban environment and would be designed and constructed according to City standards. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with environmental effects of a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 74 of 153 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials apply to the Proposed Project. 4.8.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Hazards and Hazardous Materials would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 75 of 153 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ n) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 76 of 153 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ p) Create significant increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ A Drainage Study (Appendix F – Preliminary Hydrology Report, IDS Group, July 2018, revised December 2018) and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) (Appendix G - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, IDS Group, October 2018, revised December 2018) were completed to determine potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. 4.9.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the Proposed Project would include grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities that have the potential to cause erosion that would subsequently degrade water quality and/or violate water quality standards. As required by the Clean Water Act, the Property Owner/Developer would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange and is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City of Anaheim. Since the Proposed Project would disturb one or more acres of soil, the Property Owner/Developer 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 include clearing, grading, and disturbances 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, proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the Project Site, and adjacent roadways. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in the SWPPP. The SWPPP must also include BMPs designed to protect against storm water runoff; a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants should the BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan, should the Project Site discharge directly into a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. The Project Site is within the San Gabriel River/Coyote Creek Watershed, which covers 689 square miles, 85.5 square miles of which are in Orange County, including most of the western portion of Anaheim. Drainage on the Project Site currently flows from east to west to the gutter located at the alley and then drains towards East North Street. The Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix F, Pages 5-6) describes the pre- Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 77 of 153 development drainage flow rate for the Project Site with the post-development drainage flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed site drainage pattern remains same as the existing condition except for in the 85th Percentile 24-hour storm. Stormwater runoff would be captured and infiltrated with a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) Detention System with the capacity to capture almost 3,900 cubic feet of the runoff volume and infiltrate within 22 hours. The post-development condition would contribute almost 2,000 cubic feet of additional runoff to the alley that discharges to East North Street than in the existing condition, which could affect the residential property to the west of the Project Site during a 25-year and 100-year storm event. However, since the capacity of the CMP Detention System is more than 3,900 cubic feet of runoff volume, the potential additional runoff to the alley would be captured on-site in the CMP Detention System. . Therefore, with incorporation of these policies and requirements, and implementation of the CMP Detention System, potential impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the project 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)? Less Than Significant Impact: 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 within the City, and imported water is delivered through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection. According to the City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)8, 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 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 9 (Provisional as of Jan. 1, 2018, released May 2018) identifies an average household size of 3.47 persons in Anaheim, CA. The Proposed Project would include the construction of 39 new residential units and generate approximately 136 new residents, which would increase water demand. Based on the 2015 UWMP, which reported a baseline water use of 203 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), an estimated 136 new residents would result in a water demand of approximately 27,608 GPCD or 31 acre-feet per year (afy). Under normal conditions, the 2015 UWMP predicts total potable and raw water demand of 8 City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/11777/Anaheim-UWMP-2016?bidId= 9 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 78 of 153 61,895 afy in 2020, and 66,910 afy in 2030. Of the total projected water supply of 62,050 afy in 2020 and 67,065 afy in 2030 under normal year conditions, 43,435 afy in 2020 and 46,946 afy in 2030 are estimated to be groundwater. The estimated water demand for the Proposed Project is 31 afy, which is nominal compared to the projected supply. The City would have enough water supply to service the Proposed Project. The Project Site is not an identified groundwater recharge facility. Development of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge through the development of impervious areas on the Project Site. The Project Site currently contains approximately 50,594 sf or 100 percent of impervious area. Development of the Proposed Project would reduce the impervious surface to approximately 50,594 square feet or 78.4 percent of the Project Site. Aside from the residential units, concrete driveways, asphalt streets, and concrete walkways, the remainder of the Project Site would consist of landscaping and other pervious materials. The total area of open space and common area landscaping would be approximately 13,950 sf. Therefore, potential impacts associated with groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would preserve the existing drainage pattern from east to west to the gutter located at the alley and then drain towards East North Street. Under the operating condition, site drainage would be similar except that the first flush would be captured and infiltrated with the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) Detention System. Each building would sheet flow towards a 3’ wide gutter that flows westerly and intercepts at various catch basins. A 6” pipe would carry the first flush to the infiltration system where infiltration takes place. The overflow from the sump area would eventually sheet flow to the alley where it would be discharged to the East North Street via gutter. As described in the PWQMP (Appendix G), the CMP Detention System is used to treat first runoff (85th percentile storm event). The Project Site would have catch basin all around the building that would be connected to the CMP Detention System. The CMP Detention System would be designed to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, primarily from rooftops and another impervious area. The catch basin inserts would be used as pre-treatment that removes hydrocarbons, trash, and sediments from stormwater runoff. Once the system is at its capacity, the runoff from the Project Site would sheet flow out to the alley. This would further reduce the rainfall volumes discharged from the Project Site, as well as improve the quality of water discharged. Post-development discharges would be below pre-development discharges because of the implementation of the CMP Detention System and increased pervious areas (landscaping, etc.) Development of the Proposed Project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or alter the course of a stream or river. Implementation of the NPDES permit Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 79 of 153 requirements would reduce potential impacts from erosion and siltation during the Project Site’s preparation and earthmoving phases to less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(c), the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not involve an alteration of the course of a stream or river. The post-construction drainage pattern would remain the same as the preconstruction drainage pattern. The CMP Detention System would be designed to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, primarily from rooftops and another impervious area. The catch basin inserts would be used as pre-treatment that removes hydrocarbons, trash, and sediments from stormwater runoff. The Proposed Project would not increase the runoff from the site as the existing site is 100% impervious while Proposed Project includes the landscape area of more than 13,950 sf. Therefore, this development would not have a negative impact on downstream facilities. The proposed CMP Detention System on the Project Site would retain and treat project run-off, therefore reducing flow rates from the pre-development condition. Therefore, potential impacts associated with on or off-site flooding due to an altered drainage pattern would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9 (a), Section 4.9(c), and Section 4.9(d), the Proposed Project would result in decreased flow rates from the existing condition due to the reduction in impervious surfaces from 100% to 78.4% of the Project Site and implementation of the CMP Detention System, which would be designed to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, primarily from rooftops and other impervious area. The catch basin inserts would be used as pre- treatment that removes hydrocarbons, trash, and sediments from stormwater runoff. Non- structural BMPs such as activity restrictions, basin inspection, street sweeping, and common area landscape maintenance and litter control would also contribute towards runoff control and water quality protection. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the NPDES permit requirements to reduce any potential water quality impacts. The reduced discharges from Project Site post-development would effectively improve the drainage characteristics of the Project Site and drainage would follow existing conditions. Therefore, potential impacts from runoff that would exceed the capacity of the drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 80 of 153 No Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c) and Section 4.9(e), potential pollutants from the Proposed Project include suspended-solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris. The Proposed Project includes BMPs that would reduce the degradation of water quality during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project. Proposed BMPs include the CMP Detention System with catch basin inserts to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, education for property owners/tenants/occupants, activity restrictions (including restrictions on washing and maintaining cars on the property), common area landscape management, common area litter control, employee training, common area catch basin inspection, street sweeping for private streets and parking lots, storm drain system stenciling and signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. g) Would the project 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? No Impact: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),10 the Project Site is not within a flood hazard zone. The Project Site is within Flood Zone X, an area located outside of the 100- and 500-year flood plains. Therefore, no impacts associated with housing in a 100- yeaar flood hazard area would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(g), the Project Site is not within a flood hazard zone. The Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impacts associated with flood flows would occur. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact: Flooding resulting from dam or levee failure is most commonly associated with earthquake events. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-7, the Project Site is within the general limits of the flood impact zone associated with Prado Dam failure. The Division of Dams, Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Water Resources regulate the monitoring of all area dams. Inspectors may require dam owners to perform work, maintenance, or implement controls if safety issues are found. Due to continuous monitoring by the ACOE, as well as periodic improvements and maintenance to Prado Dam, the potential for flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam is low. 10 FEMA Flood Map Service Center, Address Search; see: http://msc.fema.gov/portal/search Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 81 of 153 Therefore, potential impacts to people or structures from flooding would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. j) Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. The Project Site is surrounded by a relatively flat and urbanized area and not adjacent to any enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. A tsunami is a long sea wave caused by an earthquake or other geologic submarine disturbance. The Project Site is located over 13 miles from the Pacific Ocean and would not likely be impacted by a tsunami. The surrounding topography of the Project Site is generally flat and would not be subject to inundation by mudflow. Therefore, no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur. k) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c) and Section 4.9(d), the post-development flow rate for the Proposed Project would decrease and would not exceed the capacity of the existing and planned drainage system. BMPs would control runoff into the storm drain system and protect water quality. As discussed in Section 4.9(f), the Project Site could potentially generate pollutants including suspended-solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris. The Proposed Project includes BMPs that would reduce the degradation of water quality during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project. Proposed BMPs include the CMP Detention System with catch basin inserts to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, education for property owners/tenants/occupants, activity restrictions (including restrictions on washing and maintaining cars on the property), common area landscape management, common area litter control, , common area catch basin inspection, street sweeping for private streets and parking lots, storm drain system stenciling and signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the MS4 NPDES and General Construction Permits, which regulate storm water and urban runoff discharge to natural and constructed storm drain systems during construction. Operation of the Proposed Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not include 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. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 82 of 153 l) Would the project substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c), the post-development flow rate for the Proposed Project would decrease and would not exceed the capacity of the existing and planned drainage system. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.9(f), BMPs would control runoff and protect water quality. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the MS4 NPDES and General Construction Permits, which regulate storm water and urban runoff discharge to natural and constructed storm drain systems during construction. Operation of the Proposed Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water quality of beneficial uses of the receiving waters would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. m) Would the project potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c), and Section 4.9(f), BMPs would control runoff and protect water quality. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the MS4 NPDES and General Construction Permits, which regulate storm water and urban runoff discharge to natural and constructed storm drain systems during construction. The SWPPP must also include BMPs designed to protect against storm water runoff, a visual monitoring program, and a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants should the BMPs fail. Therefore, potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff from construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. n) Would the project potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c), and Section 4.9(f), the post-development flow rate for the Proposed Project would decrease and would not exceed the capacity of the existing and planned drainage system. BMPs would control runoff and protect water quality. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the MS4 NPDES and General Construction Permits, which regulate storm water and urban runoff discharge to natural and constructed storm drain systems during operation. Proposed BMPs for operation of the Proposed Project include the CMP Detention System with catch basin inserts to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, education for property owners/tenants/occupants, activity restrictions (including restrictions on washing and maintaining cars on the property), common area landscape management, common area litter control, common area catch basin inspection, street sweeping for private streets and parking lots, storm drain system stenciling and signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. Therefore, stormwater runoff impacts from post-construction activities would be less than significant. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 83 of 153 o) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.9(a), Section 4.9(c), and Section 4.9(d) the Proposed Project would result in a decreased flow rate for a 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm events which would not exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. The proposed CMP Detention System would retain and treat stormwater runoff from the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with changes in flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. p) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact: Grading activities during construction of the Proposed Project may result in wind driven soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, all construction and grading activities would comply with City’s grading ordinance using BMPs, including the use of fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. Upon project completion, the Project Site would be developed with residential homes, paved surfaces, and landscaping, which would prevent substantial erosion from occurring. Therefore, potential impacts from erosion would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality apply to the Proposed Project. 4.9.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Hydrology and Water Quality would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 84 of 153 4.10 Land Use and Planning Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 4.10.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact: The Proposed Project would add 39 residential units to an already urbanized area that is surrounded by residential development. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts associated with an established community would occur. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact: The Applicant proposes to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential and reclassify the zone from Industrial to RM 3.5 Multiple-Family Residential Zone to construct 39 residential units. The Proposed Project supports the following policies of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element: Goal 1.1: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods: Policy 1. Actively pursue development standards and design policies to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s many neighborhoods. Policy 2. Ensure that new development is designed in a manner that preserves the quality of life in existing neighborhoods. Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs: Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 85 of 153 Policy 1. Facilitate new residential development on vacant or underutilized infill parcels. Policy 6. Ensure quality development through appropriate development standards and by adherence to related Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses: Policy 1. Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain land use compatibility. Policy 2. Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Policy 3. Ensure that developers consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the design and development process. The Proposed Project would allow construction of new housing on an underutilized infill parcel, which would help address the City’s housing needs. According to the General Plan EIR, the City is nearing its buildout potential.11 The projected population at buildout is 381,028 according to the 2015 Orange County Progress Report prepared by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University Fullerton, which represents a 16% increase over the 2000 population of 328,014.12 The Recommended Land Use Alternative contained in the General Plan EIR provides for 126,570 dwelling units and 260,335 jobs, making the City job-rich, further increasing the jobs-housing imbalance. Identifying additional housing opportunities in the City is consistent with SCAG’s strategy to increase housing opportunities in job-rich areas. Development of the Proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment from the Low- Density Residential land use designation to the Mid Density Residential land use designation, which allows up to 27 units per acre, and a zone change from the “I” Industrial Zone to the “RM 3.5” Multiple-Family Residential Zone, which implements the Mid Density Residential land use designation. The City amended its General Plan by Resolution No. RES-2018-044 to add the Mid Density Residential land use designation and RM 3.5 zone on April 10, 2018 (GPA2017-00514)13 in order to provide great flexibility and therefore more quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. The intent for the Mid Density Residential land use designation 11 Buildout Statistical Summary Table 5.12-5; see: 5.12 Population and Housing http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2194; Buildout Statistical Summary of the Recommended Alternative Table 5.8-3; see: 5.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2190 12 Center for Demographic Research, California State University Fullerton. Orange County Jurisdiction Demographics: Anaheim; http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/_resources/pdf/progressreport/Anaheim.pdf 13 http://records.anaheim.net/cityclerk/0/doc/1887635/Page1.aspx Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 86 of 153 is to provide for a wide range of residential uses, including detached, small-lot single-family homes, attached single-family homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, and townhouses. The minimum site area per dwelling unit is 1,600 square feet. The Proposed Project would add 39 residential units on 1.57 gross acres at a density of 24.84 units per gross acre. The Proposed Project’s density and design, with modified setbacks and Recreational-Leisure common area as described in the Project Description, is consistent with and implements the Mid Density Residential land use designation and the RM 3.5 Multiple-Family Residential Zone classification. The Project Site is currently designated for Low Density Residential land uses, and its current “I” zoning and use as a storage yard is not consistent with its General Plan land use designation. Upon the approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and zone change, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the residential land use intended for the Project Site, though at a higher density, and would be consistent with the adjacent General Plan Residential land uses and less than the actual density of the property to the east, which is developed at 54 units per acre.. The Project Site is surrounded by Medium Density Residential to the southwest, Railroad and Medium and Low-Medium Density Residential to the east and south, and Low Density Residential to the west and north. In order to address compatibility with the adjacent Railroad land use, the Proposed Project includes Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures to attenuate noise and filter indoor air: Project Design Feature 1: The Property Owner/Developer shall construct six-foot high solid walls on the northern and southern property lines and between the proposed structures and the northern and southern walls on the eastern property line. The walls shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) and be free of cutouts or openings. Project Design Feature 2: The Property Owner/Developer shall provide a “windows closed” condition for each proposed residential unit. A “windows closed” condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit. Project Design Feature 3: The Property Owner/Developer shall require that all proposed residential units include a heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) unit that has an air filtration system rated at Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher. Each HVAC system shall include an additional fan unit designed to force air through the MERV filter as well as maintain positive pressure within the interior of each home. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 87 of 153 Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall install a 12-foot high wall, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall, on the north and east property line separating the recreational open space from the railroad tracks, as shown on Figure 7 – Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan; Mitigation Measure MM NOI-2: The Property Owner/Developer shall install a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 37 STC on all bedroom windows located on the north, east, and south sides of the residential units. The proposed density of 24.84 units per gross acre is consistent with the permitted density range of up to 27 units per gross acre under the Mid Density Residential land use designation, with modified setbacks and Recreational-Leisure common space area as described in the Project Description. Therefore, potential impacts associated with compliance with the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning requirements would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c)Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan Green Element, the portion of the City generally south of SR-91 and east of SR-55 falls within the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). As discussed in Section 4.4(f), the Project Site is not within the NCCP area.14 Therefore, no impacts associated with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would occur. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Land Use and Planning apply to the Proposed Project. 4.10.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Land Use and Planning would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 14 City of Anaheim Parcel Info, Zoning; see: https://gis.anaheim.net/PropertyInfo/?APN=03520501 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 88 of 153 4.11 Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 4.11.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element,15 the Project Site is not designated as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area Urbanized or Urbanizing, nor within the MRZ-2 Mineral Resource Zone Aggregate Resources Only Area by the California Geological Survey. Therefore, no impacts associated with any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact: As discussed in Section 4.11(a), the Project Site is not located within a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area Urbanized or Urbanizing, nor within an MRZ-2 Mineral Resource Zone Aggregate Resources Only area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the availability of any locally-important mineral resource recovery sites would occur. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Mineral Resources apply to the Proposed Project. 4.11.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Mineral Resources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 15 Figure G-3, City of Anaheim General Plan Program Mineral Resources Map, 1995; see: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2033 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 89 of 153 4.12 Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ A Noise Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to noise associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix H – Noise Impact Analysis, Vista Environmental, October 2018, Revised November 2018). This analysis was based on implementation of the following project design features that are either already depicted on the Proposed Project Site plan and architectural plans or are required from City and State Regulations. Project Design Feature 1: The Property Owner/Developer shall construct six-foot high solid walls on the northern and southern property lines and between the proposed structures and the northern and southern walls on the eastern property line. The walls shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) and be free of cutouts or openings. Project Design Feature 2: The Property Owner/Developer shall provide a “windows closed” condition for each proposed residential unit. A “windows closed” condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each residential unit. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 90 of 153 4.12.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels more than standards established in the City of Anaheim General Plan or Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the noise levels to the City standards. Construction-Related Noise The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition of the existing 68,000 square feet of paved area, grading of the 1.57-acre project, building construction of 39 residential units, paving of the on-site roads and parking areas, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the Project Site consist of residents at the single-family homes located as near as 20 feet west of the Project Site. There are also residential apartment units located on the east side of the railway approximately 90 feet east of the Project Site. Section 6.70.010 of the AMC 16 exempts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from the stationary noise standard of 60 dB at the nearby property line for all land uses. Through adherence to the limitation of allowable construction times provided in Section 6.70.010, the construction-related noise levels would not exceed any standards. Therefore, potential impacts associated with construction-related noise would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Operational-Related Noise The Proposed Project would consist of the development of 39 residential units. The Proposed Project would be adjacent to the BNSF railroad, which may create noise levels more than City standards at the proposed residential uses. Goal 1.1, Policy 6 of the Noise Element of the General 16AMC Section 6.70 Sound Pressure Levels http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/anaheimmunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.ht m$3.0$vid=amlegal:anaheim_ca Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 91 of 153 Plan 17 discourages the siting of new homes in areas more than 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. Section 18.40.090 of the AMC 18 requires that residential developments within 600 feet of any railroad, freeway, or arterial roadway be analyzed to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development and include any mitigation measures that would be required to meet the applicable City noise standards. Section 18.40.090.050 of the AMC requires that exterior noise within common recreation areas of multiple family dwelling projects be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dBA CNEL and requires the interior of new multiple family units to be attenuated to 45 dBA CNEL. Exterior Noise To determine compliance with the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard from the BNSF Railway, the SoundPlan model was utilized to calculate exterior noise levels at the proposed common recreation areas for the Proposed Project. The proposed common recreation areas would be located on the west side of each structure as well as on the north side of the northernmost structure. Representative receivers were placed five feet above ground level at a variety of locations within the proposed common recreation areas. The SoundPlan model results are shown in Table 9 - Proposed Common Recreation Areas Exterior Noise Levels. Table 9 - Proposed Common Recreation Areas Exterior Noise Levels Unmitigated Conditions Mitigated Conditions Site No Location Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Sound Wall Height (feet) Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Sound Wall Height (feet) 1 Building 1 Common Recreation Area 67.4 6.0 58.4 10.0 2 Building 3 Common Recreation Area 55.6 6.0 55.6 6.0 3 Building 5 Common Recreation Area 55.6 6.0 55.6 6.0 4 Building 7 Common Recreation Area 54.8 6.0 54.8 6.0 City’s Residential Exterior Noise Standard 65.0 -- 65.0 -- Exceeds City Standard? Yes -- No -- Notes: 1 Per Project Design Feature 1, 6.0-foot high walls would be constructed on the north, east, and south sides of the Project Site. 2 Per MM-NOI-1, a 12-foot high sound wall would be constructed on the northeast corner of the Project Site, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall. 3 City Residential Exterior Noise Standard of 65 dBA CNEL from Section 18.40.090.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Source: SoundPlan Version 8.0 Table 9 shows that the noise levels for the proposed common recreation areas would be as high as 67.4 dBA CNEL at Site 1, which is on the north side of Building 1 (northernmost building). The 17 City of Anaheim General Plan, Page N-12 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2037/I-Noise-Element-?bidId= 18 AMC Section 18.40.090 Sound Attenuation for Residential Developments http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi d=amlegal:anaheim_ca$anc= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project noise level at Site 1 would exceed the City’s 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard and would be considered a significant impact. Table 9 also shows that all the other common recreation areas would be within the City’s 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, as they would be farther to the west from the railroad lines and the proposed structures would effectively act as sound walls for these common recreation areas. MM-NOI-1 requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans the construction of a minimum 12-foot high sound wall, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall, to enclose the recreational open space at the north end of the Project Site, as shown on Figure 7, Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. The wall would begin at the northeast corner of the three-plex building and continue north along the east property line, then west along the northerly property line for 57 linear feet. The sound wall shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) that are free of any cutouts or openings. Table 9 shows the exterior common recreation area noise levels with mitigation incorporated, which would reduce noise levels at all proposed common recreation areas to within the City’s exterior residential noise standard. Therefore, with implementation of MM NOI-1, potential impacts associated with exterior noise would be less than significant. Interior Noise Compliance with 24-hour Average Interior Noise Levels To determine compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard from the BNSF Railway, the SoundPlan model was utilized to calculate the exterior noise levels at representative facades of the proposed residential structures. The exterior noise levels were then subtracted from the calculated exterior to interior attenuation rates (see Appendix H - Section 6.3) to determine the anticipated interior noise levels of the proposed residential units. To calculate the interior noise levels of the proposed residential units, first, second, and third floor receivers were placed in the SoundPlan model at representative locations on the façades of each of the proposed residential structures and the interior noise levels were calculated by subtracting the attenuation rates for each window/door type scenario from the exterior noise levels. The calculated average exterior noise levels at the facades of the proposed structures as well as the interior noise levels with installation of standard dual pane windows (26 STC rated windows) are shown in Table 10 – Proposed Residential Interior Noise Levels. Page 92 of 153 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 93 of 153 Table 10 - Proposed Residential Interior Noise Levels Building Side of Building Floor Exterior Noise Level at Façade (dBA CNEL) Interior Noise Levels with Standard Windows1 (dBA CNEL) 1 North First 57.1 29.1 Second 66.8 38.8 Third 67.4 39.4 2 East First 73.0 45.0 Second 72.5 44.5 Third 71.6 43.6 3 South First 62.7 34.7 Second 66.0 38.0 Third 65.8 37.8 4 East First 73.0 45.0 Second 72.5 44.5 Third 71.6 43.6 5 North First 62.6 34.6 Second 65.8 37.8 Third 65.6 37.6 6 East First 73.0 45.0 Second 72.5 44.5 Third 71.6 43.6 7 South First 62.7 34.7 Second 66.0 38.0 Third 65.8 37.8 City’s Residential Interior Noise Standard2 45 Exceeds City Standard? No Notes: 1 A minimum 28 dBA noise reduction has been calculated for standard 26 STC windows (see Appendix H, Table I). Source: SoundPlan Model Version 8.0. Table 10 shows that the average 24-hour interior noise at the proposed residential units would be as high as 45.0 dBA CNEL, which would be within the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard with installation of standard dual-pane windows. Potential impacts of noise to the interior of the residential units would be less than significant. Maximum Interior Noise Impacts and Sleep Disturbance Potential impacts on residents occurring from train pass-bys are addressed by the City by using a 24-hour weighted average noise level (CNEL) to determine significance. Although the City has a CNEL standard, the Applicant has identified an additional threshold related to sleep awakenings that is more stringent based on the graph from an Update on An Alternative Analysis of Sleep Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 94 of 153 Awakening Data, prepared by Nicholas Miller, 2011 19, which shows that at the middle of the curve that approximately 15 percent of persons awaken when an intermittent noise event exceeds 65 dBA Lmax. This level has been utilized to determine if a sleep disturbance would occur in this analysis. The use of a 65 dBA Lmax threshold would be considered conservative, since Mitigation Measure N-5 of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP) Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 312 20, which does not cover the area of the City where the Project Site is located, requires that new residential developments be designed to minimize nighttime awakenings from train horns such that interior single-event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax. The maximum noise levels impacting the Project Site were recorded during the 24-hour noise measurements, which found that the maximum noise level that was measured on the Project Site is 103.6 dBA Lmax. The exterior to interior noise attenuation rate is shown in Table 11 – Exterior to Interior Residential Units Rooms Noise Reduction Rates, which shows that the proposed residential units with standard dual pane windows have an attenuation rate of 28 dB. This would result in a maximum interior noise level of 75.6 dBA Lmax. The interior maximum noise level would exceed the 65 dBA Lmax sleep disturbance noise standard and would be a significant impact. Table 11 - Exterior to Interior Residential Units Rooms Noise Reduction Rates Plan Floor Room Type Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction (dBA) STC 26 Windows/Doors1 STC 37 Windows/Doors2 Plan 1 Third Bedroom 1 30 39 Second Great Room/Kitchen 28 -- Plan 2 Third Master Bedroom 32 42 Second Great Room/Kitchen 32 -- Plan 3 Third Bedroom 2 30 40 Third Bedroom 3 33 42 Second Great Room/Kitchen 29 -- Minimum Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction 28 39 Notes: 1 Based on standard dual pane windows with a 26 STC rating, which are required per Title 24 energy saving requirements. 2 Based on acoustic performance dual pane windows with a 37 STC rating. Only bedroom windows were analyzed for this STC rating. Source: Kinsler, 2000; Harris, 1994. MM-NOI-2 requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans that all bedroom windows on the north, east, and south sides of the proposed residential units to be acoustic performance dual pane windows that have a minimum 37 STC rating. 19 https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3630002 20 http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/11727/Mitigation-Monitoring-and-Reporting-Program Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 95 of 153 The use of acoustic performance dual pane windows with a 37 STC rating would provide a minimum of exterior to interior attenuation rate of 39 dBA for the bedrooms. With implementation of MM-NOI-2, the bedroom maximum noise levels would be reduced to 64.6 dBA Lmax and would be within the 65 dBA Lmax standard for sleep disturbance. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM-NOI-2. In summary, with adherence to the allowable construction times contained in the AMC, construction-related noise levels would not exceed City any standards and impacts would be less than significant. However, the Proposed Project would result in exterior and interior noise impacts. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 would reduce operational exterior and interior noise impacts to less than significant. b)Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact: Construction activities for the Proposed Project would include demolition of the existing pavement, grading of the 1.57-acre Project Site, building construction of the 39 residential units, paving of the on-site roads and parking areas, and application of architectural coatings. Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the Project Site consist of residents at the single-family homes located as near as 20 feet west of the Project Site. There are also residential apartment units located on the east side of the railway, as near as 90 feet east of the Project Site. Neither the AMC nor the General Plan provides a quantifiable vibration threshold. However, the General Plan EIR 21 utilized a vibration threshold of 0.2 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold to determine vibration impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan. The 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold was derived from research performed by Caltrans.22 Since the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold is a substantiated threshold that has been utilized by the City, it is also utilized in the analysis of vibration impacts for the Proposed Project. The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. A large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. The vibration level at the nearest off-site receptor (20 feet away) would be 0.114 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest off-site receptor would be within the City’s 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold. Therefore, potential impacts associated with construction-related vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 21 City of Anaheim General Plan EIR Section 5.10 Noise http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2192/510-Noise-?bidId= 22 California Department of Transportation. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences) Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 96 of 153 The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, potential impacts associated with operation-related vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Due to the location of the Project Site adjacent to two railroad lines, there is a potential for excessive vibration levels to impact the proposed residential units. Neither the City’s General Plan nor the Municipal Code provide any quantitative vibration thresholds to determine significance. However, the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) No. 312 limits vibration impacts from trains to 72 VdB for all new residential development located within the ACSP. The Proposed Project is located outside of the ACSP, so utilization of this threshold provides a conservative analysis. Vibration measurements were taken on-site to determine the vibration level created by trains pass-bys on the adjacent railway as shown in Table 12 – Vibration Measurements During Train Pass-Bys. A train pass-by creates a vibration level as high as 58.1 VdB at the nearest location of the proposed residential units that would be located next to the train tracks. Table 12 - Vibration Measurements During Train Pass-Bys Train Time and Date of Measurement VdB Inch per Second PPV Hertz (Hz) Acceleration (g) Vibration Meter Located Approximately 10 feet West of the East Property Line Amtrak on West Track 10:36 a.m. on 12/19/2017 31.8 0.004 39 0.008 Amtrak on East Track 10:57 a.m. on 12/19/2017 31.9 0.005 37 0.010 Vibration Meter Located Approximately 1.5 feet West of the East Property Line Amtrak on West Track 11:57 a.m. on 9/13/2018 58.1 0.089 32 0.110 Metrolink on East Track 12:04 p.m. on 9/13/2018 54.9 0.062 27 0.033 Source: Vibration measurements taken with an Instantel Minimate Plus Vibration Meter. The measured vibration levels are well below the 72 VdB standard. Therefore, potential impacts associated with vibration during operation would be less than significant on no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 97 of 153 c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact: The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project may result in a potential substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the Proposed Project. Potential noise impacts associated with operations of the Proposed Project would be from project-generated vehicular traffic on the project vicinity roadways. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The Proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the Proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. The Proposed Project’s potential off-site noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the Proposed Project. Goal 2.1, Policy 3 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element 23 requires new development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient level adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses to provide appropriate mitigation. However, since the General Plan does not define what increase in roadway noise would be considered significant, the noise increase thresholds detailed in the City’s General Plan EIR has been utilized in this analysis. The General Plan EIR utilized a mobile-source noise threshold of: a 5 dBA increase threshold where the without project roadway noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL at the nearest homes; or a 3 dBA increase threshold where the without project roadway noise levels are 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Existing Conditions The potential off-site traffic noise impacts created by the on-going operations of the Proposed Project have been analyzed through utilization of the FHWA model and parameters described in Appendix H, Section 6.2. The Proposed Project’s off-site traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the existing and existing plus cumulative projects conditions. Table 13 – Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions shows that for the existing conditions, the Proposed Project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the noise increase thresholds in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the existing conditions would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 23 City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, Page N-21 http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2037/I-Noise-Element-?bidId= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 98 of 153 Table 13 - Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Roadway Segment Existing Existing with Project Project Contribution Increase Threshold2 La Palma Avenue West of Olive Street 67.5 67.5 0.0 +3 dBA La Palma Avenue West of Pauline Street 67.1 67.1 0.0 +3 dBA La Palma Avenue East of Pauline Street 64.8 64.8 0.0 +5 dBA North Street West of Anaheim Boulevard 59.6 59.6 0.0 +5 dBA North Street West of Olive Street 57.0 57.0 0.0 +5 dBA North Street West of Pauline Street 53.8 53.9 0.1 +5 dBA North Street East of Pauline Street 52.8 53.2 0.4 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Anaheim Boulevard 49.1 49.3 0.2 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Olive Street 51.1 51.3 0.2 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Pauline Street 50.2 50.5 0.3 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street East of Pauline Street 43.5 45.4 1.9 +5 dBA Anaheim Boulevard South of Wilhelmina Street 69.0 69.0 0.0 +3 dBA Olive Street North of North Street 58.7 58.7 0.0 +5 dBA Olive Street South of Wilhelmina Street 59.3 59.3 0.0 +5 dBA Pauline Street North of Wilhelmina Street 42.5 43.9 1.4 +5 dBA Pauline Street South of Wilhelmina Street 51.9 52.0 0.1 +5 dBA Notes: 1 Distance to nearest residential use shown in Appendix H, Table F. Noise levels do not consider existing noise barriers. 2 Increase Threshold obtained from General Plan Goal 2.1, Policy 3 detailed in Appendix H, Section 4.3. Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. Cumulative Projects Year 2021 Conditions The Proposed Project’s potential off-site noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the year 2021 plus cumulative projects without project scenario to the year 2021 plus cumulative projects with project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 14 – Year 2021 Cumulative Projects Conditions Project Traffic Noise Contributions. The Proposed Project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby sensitive receptors from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the noise increase thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the year 2021 cumulative projects conditions. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 99 of 153 Table 14 - Year 2021 Cumulative Projects Conditions Project Traffic Noise Contributions dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1 Roadway Segment 2021 Cumulative 2021 Cumulative with Project Project Contribution Increase Threshold2 La Palma Avenue West of Olive Street 67.8 67.8 0.0 +3 dBA La Palma Avenue West of Pauline Street 67.4 67.4 0.0 +3 dBA La Palma Avenue East of Pauline Street 65.0 65.0 0.0 +3 dBA North Street West of Anaheim Boulevard 59.8 59.8 0.0 +5 dBA North Street West of Olive Street 57.2 57.2 0.0 +5 dBA North Street West of Pauline Street 53.9 54.0 0.1 +5 dBA North Street East of Pauline Street 52.9 53.3 0.4 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Anaheim Boulevard 49.1 49.3 0.2 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Olive Street 51.2 51.4 0.2 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street West of Pauline Street 50.3 50.7 0.4 +5 dBA Wilhelmina Street East of Pauline Street 43.5 45.4 1.9 +5 dBA Anaheim Boulevard South of Wilhelmina Street 69.4 69.4 0.0 +3 dBA Olive Street North of North Street 58.8 58.8 0.0 +5 dBA Olive Street South of Wilhelmina Street 59.4 59.4 0.0 +5 dBA Pauline Street North of Wilhelmina Street 43.4 44.6 1.2 +5 dBA Pauline Street South of Wilhelmina Street 52.1 52.2 0.1 +5 dBA Notes: 1 Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table F. Noise levels do not consider existing noise barriers. 2 Increase Threshold obtained from General Plan Goal 2.1, Policy 3 detailed in Appendix H, Section 4.3. Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project may create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels existing without the Proposed Project. Construction activities for the Proposed Project would include demolition of the existing pavement, grading of the 1.57-acre Project Site, building construction of the 39 residential units, paving of the on-site roads and parking areas, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest off- site sensitive receptors to the Project Site consist of residents at the single-family homes located as near as 20 feet west of the Project Site. There are also residential apartment units located on the east side of the train tracks approximately 90 feet east of the Project Site. Section 6.70.010 of the AMC exempts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from the stationary noise standard of 60 dB at the nearby property line for all land uses. The analysis in Section 4.12(a) found that the Proposed Project would adhere to the City construction noise standards. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created during construction activities at the nearby sensitive receptors. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 100 of 153 Thus, even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase at the nearby sensitive receptors. To determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Noise Impact Analysis utilizes the OSHA agency limits for noise exposure to workers to 90 dB or less over eight continuous hours, which is considered conservative. Table 15 – Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Receptors shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the demolition and grading construction phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 89 dBA at the single-family homes to the west of the Project Site. Table 15 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the OSHA noise standard of 90 dB at the nearby homes. Therefore, potential impacts associated with substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 15 - Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Receptors Construction Phase Single-Family Homes to the West Single-Family Homes to the East Distance (feet) Noise Level (dBA Leq) Distance (feet) Noise Level (dBA Leq) Demolition 20 88 79 78 Grading 20 89 90 77 Building Construction 40 78 95 73 Paving 25 82 95 72 Painting 40 76 95 68 OSHA Noise Threshold 90 90 Exceed Threshold? No No Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 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? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public use airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport located 4.2 miles to the northwest. The Project Site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of this airport and no aircraft noise was audible during site visits associated with the noise and vibration measurements. Therefore, potential impacts of excessive noise levels from a public airport would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 101 of 153 e)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? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest heliport is located at Kaiser Permanente Hospital located 3.75 miles east of the Project Site. No aircraft noise was audible during site visits associated with the noise and vibration measurements Therefore, potential impacts of excessive noise levels from a private airport would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans the construction of a minimum 12-foot high sound wall, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall, to enclose the recreational open space at the north end of the Project Site, as shown on Figure 7, Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. The wall would begin at the northeast corner of the three-plex building and continue north along the east property line, then west along the northerly property line for 57 linear feet. The sound wall shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) that are free of any cutouts or openings. MM-NOI-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include on the building plans the requirement that acoustic performance dual pane windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 37 STC be installed on all bedroom windows located on the north, east, and south sides of the residential units. 4.12.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Noise would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-NOI-1 and MM NOI-2. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 102 of 153 4.13 Paleontological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?☐☒☐☐ A Paleontological Assessment was completed to determine the potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix B –Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, VCS Environmental, October 2018). 4.13.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The paleontological assessment included a records search for fossils recorded within and near to the Project Site. The results of the records search indicated that no fossils have been found within the Project Site. However, there are fossil localities nearby from deposits like those that may occur at depth near the Proposed Project. According to the survey documentation, surface sediments at the Project Site and in the surrounding vicinity consist of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, with older terrestrial Quaternary sediments occurring at various depths, as part of the floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River that currently flows to the east and possibly from Carbon Creek that currently flows just to the north. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but there is a vertebrate fossil locality, LACM 1652, east-southeast of the Project Site on the west side of the Santa Ana River along Rio Vista Avenue south of Lincoln Avenue, that produced a fossil specimen of sheep, Ovis. The closest fossil locality in older Quaternary sediments is LACM 4943, situated a little farther east of the Project Site east of the Santa Ana River along Fletcher Avenue east of Glassell Street, that produced a specimen of fossil horse, Equus, at a depth of 8-10 feet below the surface. Surface grading or very shallow excavations in the uppermost few feet of the younger Quaternary Alluvium on the Project Site are unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains. Deeper excavations on the Project Site, however, may well encounter significant vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary deposits. Therefore, with implementation of MM-PAL-1 for paleontological monitoring of excavation activities four feet or greater below ground surface, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures MM-PAL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department evidence that a qualified paleontologist has been retained for monitoring of ground-disturbing activities occurring at a depth of four feet or greater below ground surface. If paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project, the Contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 103 of 153 activities within 50 feet of the discovery and construction activities may continue in other areas. The paleontologist shall collect and process sediment samples to determine the small fossil potential on the Project Site. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine if the discovery is significant. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work such as data recovery excavation or resource recovery may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. 4.13.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Paleontological Resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-PAL-1. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 104 of 153 4.14 Population and Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?☐☐☐☒ 4.14.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact: Based on projections in the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element the City’s population is projected to be 407,463 at buildout.24 The Proposed Project would include the development of 39 residential units on 1.57-acres, with a projected population of 136 based on the average household size of 3.47 persons as per the Department of Finance. The additional 136 residents would represent less than 0.1 percent of the City’s build-out population. The Proposed Project would not construct or extend roads or other infrastructure that may indirectly induce population growth; rather, existing infrastructure would be upgraded and/or replaced to accommodate the new homes. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not include the development of commercial uses, which would induce job growth, and thereby population growth in the area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with population growth would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b)Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: The Project Site is currently developed as outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. There are no existing residential uses or structures on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with housing displacement would occur. 24 City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-38 http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9522/D-Land-Use-Element?bidId= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 105 of 153 c)Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: As discussed in Section 4.14(b), the Project Site is currently developed as outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers and does not have any residential structures on site. Therefore, no impacts associated with population displacement would occur. 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Population and Housing apply to the Proposed Project. 4.14.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Population and Housing would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 106 of 153 4.15 Public Services Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection?☐☐ ☒☐ ii.Police protection?☐☐ ☒☐ iii. Schools?☐☐ ☒☐ iv. Parks?☐☐ ☒☐ v.Other public facilities?☐☐ ☒☐ 4.15.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i.Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact: Fire protection services for the Project Site are provided by the Anaheim Fire and Rescue (AFR), which operates 12 fire stations composed of 10 engine companies and five truck companies. AFR employs approximately 227 firefighters, six battalion chiefs, and support staff for a total of 276 full-time personnel, of which 210 are sworn safety employees, 34 are civilians, and 32 are Joint Powers Authority (JPA).25. The closest fire station to the Project Site is Fire Station No. 5, located approximately two miles to the east on La Palma Avenue.26 Based on the proximity of the Project Site to existing AFR facilities, and since the Project Site is located in a developed portion of the City that is within the service area of AFR, the 25 Anaheim Fire & Rescue Organization Charge; see: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1275 26 Anaheim Fire & Rescue, Station Locations; see: http://www.anaheim.net/650/Station-Locations Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 107 of 153 Proposed Project would be served by AFR without adversely affecting personnel-to-reside ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The construction of 39 residential units would result in approximately 136 new residents, which could incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to submit building plans that comply with AMC Title 15: Buildings and Housing 27, and Title 16: Fire 28 and pay the appropriate impact fees in effect at the time building permits are issued. Development of the Project Site would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with fire protection would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. ii.Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact: The Anaheim Police Department (APD) provides law enforcement and crime prevention services in Anaheim, including emergency and non-emergency response to crimes in progress, threats to public safety, requests for assistance, accident investigation, traffic enforcement, air support, crime mapping, and narcotics/vice-related investigation and apprehension. APD employs approximately 400 sworn officers and a support staff of more than 173.The APD operates three stations – Headquarters Station (425 South Harbor Boulevard), East Station (8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road), and West Station (320 South Beach Boulevard). The closest station to the Project Site is the Headquarters Station, located approximately 1.25 miles southwest. Based on the proximity of the Project Site to the existing APD station and since the Project Site is in a developed portion of the City that is within the service area of the APD, the Proposed Project would be served by APD without adversely affecting personnel-to-resident ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The construction of 39 residential units would result in approximately 136 new residents, which could incrementally increase demand for police protection services. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay development impact fees at the time building permits are issued. Development of the Project Site would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with police protection would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 27 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi d=amlegal:anaheim_ca$anc= 28 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vi d=amlegal:anaheim_ca$anc= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 108 of 153 iii. Schools? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would include 39 residential units that would house approximately 136 residents. The Anaheim Elementary School District would provide elementary school education services (kindergarten through 6th grade) for students who live at the Project Site. The AESD operates 25 schools in the City. Guinn Elementary School Elementary serves the Project Site 29, approximately 2.6 miles to the southeast. According to the California Department of Education 30 , during the 2016-2017 school year, Guinn Elementary had an enrollment of 694 students, which has declined each year since 2012-2013. The Anaheim Union High School District would serve students in 7th through 12th grades who live at the Project Site. The AUHSD operates 20 schools in the City. Sycamore Junior High School serves the Project Site and is located approximately 0.9 miles to the east. According to the California Department of Education, during the 2016-2017 school year, Sycamore Junior High School had an enrollment of 1,399 students, which has remained relatively steady since 2012-2013. Anaheim High School serves the Project Site and is located approximately 1.8 miles to the southwest. According to the California Department of Education, during the 2016-2017 school year, Anaheim High School had an enrollment of 3,077 students, which has declined slightly since 2012-2013. The increase in students residing at the Project Site would be nominal in relation to the enrollment at each of the schools, as shown in Table 16 - New Student Generation. Table 16 - New Student Generation Grade Levels Student Generation Rate 31 Number of New Residents Projected Number of New Students Enrollment at Nearest School % Increase in Student Enrollment Elementary School 0.116 136 16 694 2.16 Junior High School 0.013 136 2 1,399 0.14 High School 0.032 136 5 3,077 0.16 Total Students 22 5,170 0.43 The Proposed Project would be subject to Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), which requires the payment of mandatory impact fees to offset any impact to school facilities. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay its fair share of school fees in accordance with SB 50 based on the number of proposed dwelling units and square footage to offset the potential impact to school services. Therefore, potential impacts associated with schools would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 29 http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtcode=40000 30 https://www.ed-data.org/school/Orange/Anaheim-Elementary/Guinn-(James-M.)-Elementary 31 Table 5.13-14 of the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 109 of 153 iv.Parks? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would include 39 residential units that would house approximately 136 residents. At least a portion of these residents would patronize the park and recreation facilities located in proximity to the Project Site. The closes park to the Project Site is Julianna Park, which is located 0.3 miles northwest and offers a children’s play area, outdoor basketball court, picnic shelters, and picnic tables. The Proposed Project would be subject to the Quimby Act and AMC Section 17.34.010, which requires development projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the Property Owner/Developer would pay its fair share of in-lieu fees based on the number and type of dwelling units. In addition, the Proposed Project would include common recreation areas located throughout the Project Site, including a community open space area with shade structure, BBQ counter, cornhole court, and specimen trees for shade with seating for small social events and group gatherings. These on-site amenities would provide an alternative to off-site public parks and recreational facilities, allowing the Proposed Project’s residents to recreate on the Project Site while incrementally reducing impacts associated with off-site public park and recreational facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with park facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. v.Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact: It is reasonable to assume that at least a portion of the approximately 136 residents generated by the Proposed Project would patronize public facilities such as local library branches operated by the City. The Anaheim Public Library system consists of a Central Library, six branches, a Bookmobile, Books on the Go at the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), plus the Anaheim Heritage Center and Founder’s Park. The Central Library is the closest library to the Project Site, located approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest (Anaheim Public Library 2017). According to the City’s General Plan EIR (City of Anaheim 2004), approximately 330,000 people use the Anaheim Public Library system. The Proposed Project would add approximately 136 residents, which represents less than 0.01% of the existing City residents who are served by the Anaheim Public Library system. This nominal increase in library patrons is not expected to significantly impact the Anaheim Public Library’s ability to serve existing and future users. Therefore, potential impacts associated with libraries and other public facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Public Services apply to the Proposed Project. 4.15.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Public Services would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 110 of 153 4.16 Recreation Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐☐☐☒ 4.16.1 Environmental Analysis a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact: The Anaheim Parks Division of the Community Services Department is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of 57 parks that make up nearly 800 acres within Anaheim 32. Nine parks are located within a mile of the Project Site. The City’s goal is to provide at least two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Proposed Project would include 39 residential units that would house approximately 136 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize the various public park and recreation facilities in proximity to the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within a Park Deficiency Area 33. The Proposed Project would be subject to the state’s Quimby Act and AMC Section 17.34.010, which requires development projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the Property Owner/Developer would pay its fair share of in-lieu fees based on the number and type of dwelling units. In addition, the Proposed Project would include common recreation areas located throughout the Project Site, including a community open space area with shade structure, BBQ counter, cornhole court, and specimen trees for shade with seating for small social events and group gatherings. These on-site amenities would provide an alternative to off-site public parks and recreational facilities, allowing the residents of the Proposed Project to recreate on the Project Site while incrementally reducing impacts associated with off-site Public Park and recreational facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with existing recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 32 http://ca-anaheim.civicplus.com/916/Parks-Facilities 33 Anaheim General Plan, Green Element, Figure G-1, Green Plan Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 111 of 153 b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact: The Proposed Project would include private common recreation areas located throughout the Project Site, including a community open space area with shade structure, BBQ counter, cornhole court, and specimen trees for shade with seating for small social events and group gatherings. These amenities would be fully contained on the Project Site and are part of the Proposed Project. As such, any potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of these on-site recreational amenities are accounted for in this IS/MND as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the Proposed Project. No adverse physical impacts beyond those already disclosed in this document would occur because of implementation of the Proposed Project’s on-site recreational facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Recreation apply to the Proposed Project. 4.16.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Recreation would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 112 of 153 4.17 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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 that results in substantial safety risks?☐☐☐ ☒ d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?☐☐☐ ☒ e)Result in inadequate emergency access?☐☐ ☒ f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☐☐☒☐ A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed to determine potential impacts to traffic associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix I – Traffic Impact Analysis, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, July 2018, Revised December 2018). Existing Traffic Conditions Study Area Eight (8) key study intersections and ten (10) key roadway segments have been identified as the locations in the City of Anaheim at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions as shown in Table 17 - Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area. Some portion of potential project-related traffic would pass through each of these intersections/roadway segments, and their analysis would reveal the expected relative impacts of the project. These key intersections and key roadway segments were selected for evaluation based on discussions with City of Anaheim Traffic Engineering Department staff. ☐ Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 113 of 153 Table 17 - Traffic Impact Analysis Study Area Key Study Intersections 1. Olive Street at La Palma Avenue 5. Pauline Street at North Street 2. Pauline Street at La Palma Avenue 6. Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street 3. Anaheim Boulevard at North Street 7. Olive Street at Wilhelmina Street 4. Olive Street at North Street 8. Pauline Street at Wilhelmina Street Key Roadway Segments A. La Palma Avenue, between Olive Street and Pauline Street B. Olive Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C. Pauline Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street D. North Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street E. North Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street F. Anaheim Boulevard, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street G. Olive Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street H. Pauline Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street I. Wilhelmina Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street J. Wilhelmina Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street Existing Traffic Volumes Existing daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the eight (8) key study intersections and ten (10) key roadway segments evaluated in this report were obtained from daily machine and manual peak hour turning movement counts conducted by Transportation Studies Inc. in May 2018. Appendix I, Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study intersections evaluated in this report, respectively. Appendix I, Figure 3-3 also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for the ten (10) key roadway segments near the Proposed Project. Existing Intersection Conditions Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the eight (8) key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for unsignalized intersections. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) In conformance with the City of Anaheim, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per City of Anaheim requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and all turn lanes. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 114 of 153 The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 18 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections. Table 18 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A ≤ 0.60 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.61 – 0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71 – 0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81 – 0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E 0.91 – 1.00 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.00 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The HCM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections. This methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections, the overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle, and level of service is calculated for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop- controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 19 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 115 of 153 Table 19 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Method of Analysis (Roadway Segments) Existing daily operating conditions for the ten (10) key roadway segments have been investigated according to the daily volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of each link. The daily V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on the 24-hour traffic count data and the existing daily capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. The roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is presented in Table 20 - Roadway Link Capacities, along with the six corresponding service levels and associated V/C ratios. Table 20 - Roadway Link Capacities Facility Type Number of Lanes Level of Service Criteria with Associated Roadway Capacity Daily Values (VPD) Level of Service (LOS) A B C D E F Principal 8-lanes divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 -- Major 6-lanes divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 -- Primary 4-lanes divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 -- Secondary 4-lanes undivided 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 -- Commuter Local Arterial 2-lanes undivided 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 -- V/C Ratio ≤ 0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 ≥ 1.00 Level of Service Criteria According to the City of Anaheim’s Circulation Element and stated in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all City intersections. The arterial roadway criteria for the City of Anaheim involves the use of average daily traffic (ADT) Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 116 of 153 volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim. Existing Level of Service Results Intersections Existing peak hour service level calculations for the eight (8) key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry in Table 21 - Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary shows that all eight (8) key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 21 - Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Key Intersections Time Period Jurisdiction Minimum Acceptable LOS Control Type ICU/HCM LOS 1. Olive Street at La Palma Avenue AM Anaheim D 2∅ Traffic Signal 0.382 A PM 0.421 A 2. Pauline Street at La Palma Avenue AM Anaheim D One – Way Stop 15.6 s/v C PM 13.1 s/v B 3. Anaheim Boulevard at North Street AM Anaheim D 2∅ Traffic Signal 0.425 A PM 0.428 A 4. Olive Street at North Street AM Anaheim D All – Way Stop 8.1 s/v A PM 8.1 s/v A 5. Pauline Street at North Street AM Anaheim D All – Way Stop 7.2 s/v A PM 7.3 s/v A 6. Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street AM Anaheim D Two – Way Stop 20.0 s/v C PM 22.7 s/v C 7. Olive Street at Wilhelmina Street AM Anaheim D All – Way Stop 7.7 s/v A PM 7.8 s/v A 8. Pauline Street at Wilhelmina Street AM Anaheim D All – Way Stop 7.2 s/v A PM 7.2 s/v A Notes: • Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) • ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization • HCM = Highway Capacity Manual • ∅ = Phase Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 117 of 153 Roadway Segments Existing service level calculations for the ten (10) key roadway segments based on existing 24- hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry in Table 22 - Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary shows that all ten (10) key roadway segments currently operate at acceptable LOS A daily. The first column (1) shows the number of lanes, the second column (2) shows the arterial classification and the third column (3) shows the existing LOS “E” capacity. The fourth column (4) shows the daily volume, V/C ratio and resulting level of service. Table 22 - Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Min. Acc. LOS (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS A. La Palma Avenue, between Olive Street and Pauline Street Anaheim C 4D Primary 37,500 20,966 0.559 A B. Olive Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 2,865 0.229 A C. Pauline Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 1,235 0.099 A D. North Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 2,989 0.239 A E. North Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 2,362 0.189 A F. Anaheim Boulevard, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street Anaheim C 4D Primary 37,500 17,091 0.456 A G. Olive Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 2,761 0.221 A H. Pauline Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 1,362 0.109 A I. Wilhelmina Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 1,333 0.107 A Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 118 of 153 Key Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Min. Acc. LOS (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Existing Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS J. Wilhelmina Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street Anaheim C 2U Collector 12,500 1,181 0.094 A 4.17.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact: Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one- way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting a generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. The trip generation potential of the existing land use (i.e. RV storage) was estimated using ITE Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse rates. The trip generation potential of the Proposed Project was estimated using ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise rates, which correlates to multifamily housing with between three and ten floors, consistent with the Proposed Project description. Proposed Project Traffic Generation The Proposed Project is forecast to generate 212 daily trips, with 14 trips (4 inbound, 10 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 17 trips (10 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday, as shown in Table 23 - Project Traffic Generation Forecast. Based on common traffic engineering practices, the traffic generated by the existing land use may be considered to represent a “trip credit” for the Project Site, against which the impact of the Proposed Project might be compared. Comparison of the trips generated by the existing land use to the trips generated by the Proposed Project shows that it would generate 194 net daily trips, 13 net AM peak hour trips and 15 net PM peak hour trips. However, as a conservative measure, the existing “trip credit” was not applied. As such, the forecast project trips (i.e. 212 daily trips, 14 AM peak hour trips and 17 PM peak hour trips) were used to evaluate the Proposed Project’s potential traffic impacts to provide a “worse-case” analysis. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 119 of 153 Table 23 - Project Traffic Generation Forecast ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors:  151: Mini-Warehouse [TE/Storage Units (100s)] 17.96 0.71 0.68 1.39 0.98 0.97 1.95  221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 Existing Land Use Generation Forecast:  RV Storage (100 RV Spaces) 18 1 0 1 1 1 2 Proposed Project Generation Forecast:  Downtown Anaheim 39 (39 DU) 212 4 10 14 10 7 17 Net Difference in Trip Generation Potential (Proposed Project vs. Existing Land Use) 194 3 10 13 9 6 15 General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Project Traffic Generation Forecast Based on information provided by City of Anaheim Planning Department staff, the maximum development for the Project Site per the current General Plan is nine single family dwelling units. Table 24 – General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Project Traffic Generation Forecast summarizes the trip generation comparison between the Proposed Project and the current General Plan land use. Review of the last row of Table 24 shows that the Proposed Project would generate 127 more daily trips, seven more AM peak hour trips, and eight more PM peak hour trips than the current General Plan land use. Per the direction of City of Anaheim Traffic Engineering Department staff, these net trips were utilized in the long-term buildout (Year 2035) analysis. Table 24 - General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Project Traffic Generation Forecast ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors:  220: Single Family Detached Housing (TE/DU) 9.44 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99  221: Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise (TE/DU) 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 Proposed Project Generation Factors:  Downtown Anaheim 39 (39 DU) 212 4 10 14 10 7 17 Maximum Development Per Current General Plan:  Single Family Detached Housing (9 DU) 85 2 5 7 6 3 9 Net Project Trip Generation Forecast 127 2 5 7 4 4 8 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 120 of 153 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The traffic distribution pattern for the Proposed Project is shown in Appendix I, Figure 5-1. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: • The site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard, etc.), • Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals, • Existing intersection traffic volumes, and • Ingress/egress availability at the Project Site. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Proposed Project are presented in Appendix I, Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. Appendix I, Figure 5-3 also presents the daily project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Appendix I, Figures 5-2 and 5-3 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Appendix I, Figure 5-1 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 24. The anticipated long-term buildout (Year 2035) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Proposed Project are presented in Appendix I, Figures 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. Figure 5-5 also presents the long-term buildout (Year 2035) daily project traffic volumes. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-4 and 5-5 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the net traffic generation forecast presented in Table 24. Existing Plus Project Analysis Intersections Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the eight (8) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. Table 25 - Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary shows that the eight (8) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 121 of 153 Table 25 - Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Mi n i m u m Ac c e p t a b l e L O S (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions (3) Significant Impact ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/No 1. Olive Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 0.382 A 0.382 A 0.000 No PM 0.421 A 0.422 A 0.001 No 2. Pauline Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 15.6 s/v C 16.0 s/v C 0.4 s/v No PM 13.1 s/v B 13.7 s/v B 0.6 s/v No 3. Anaheim Boulevard at North Street AM D 0.425 A 0.425 A 0.000 No PM 0.428 A 0.428 A 0.000 No 4. Olive Street at North Street AM D 8.1 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 8.1 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 5. Pauline Street at North Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 6. Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street AM D 20.0 s/v C 20.6 s/v C 0.6 s/v No PM 22.7 s/v C 23.3 s/v C 0.6 s/v No 7. Olive Street at Wilhelmina Street AM D 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.1 s/v No PM 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 8. Pauline Street at Wilhelmina Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 0.0 s/v No Notes: • Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) • ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization • HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Roadway Segments Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the ten (10) key roadway segments when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. Table 26 - Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary shows that the ten (10) key roadway segments currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS A daily with the addition of Project generated traffic to existing traffic. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 122 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 123 of 153 Table 26 - Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Min. Acc. LOS (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classificatio n (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Existing Traffic Conditions (5) Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Increas e Significant (Yes/No) A. La Palma Avenue, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 4D Primary 37,500 20,966 0.559 A 20,993 0.560 A 0.001 No B. Olive Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,865 0.229 A 2,892 0.231 A 0.002 No C. Pauline Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,235 0.099 A 1,315 0.105 A 0.006 No D. North Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,989 0.239 A 3,000 0.240 A 0.001 No E. North Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,362 0.189 A 2,399 0.192 A 0.003 No F. Anaheim Boulevard, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 4D Primary 37,500 17,091 0.456 A 17,091 0.456 A 0.000 No G. Olive Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,761 0.221 A 2,761 0.221 A 0.000 No H. Pauline Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,362 0.109 A 1,362 0.109 A 0.000 No I. Wilhelmina Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,333 0.107 A 1,386 0.111 A 0.004 No J. Wilhelmina Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,181 0.094 A 1,255 0.100 A 0.006 No Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 124 of 153 This page intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 125 of 153 Year 2021 Plus Project Analysis Intersections An analysis of future (Year 2021) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that all eight (8) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and cumulative project traffic to existing traffic. Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the eight (8) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. Table 27 - Year 2021 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary shows that all eight (8) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2021. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 126 of 153 Table 27 - Year 2021 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Perio d Mi n i m u m A c c e p t a b l e L O S (1) Existing Traffic Condition s (2) Year 2021 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (3) Year 2021 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact ICU/HCM LOS ICU/ HCM LO S ICU/ HCM LO S Increas e Yes/N o 1 Olive Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 0.382 A 0.40 3 A 0.40 3 A 0.000 No PM 0.421 A 0.44 4 A 0.44 4 A 0.000 No 2 Pauline Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 15.6 s/v C 16.6 s/v C 17.1 s/v C 0.5 s/v No PM 13.1 s/v B 13.6 s/v B 14.3 s/v B 0.7 s/v No 3 Anaheim Boulevard at North Street AM D 0.425 A 0.44 3 A 0.44 3 A 0.000 No PM 0.428 A 0.44 8 A 0.44 8 A 0.000 No 4 Olive Street at North Street AM D 8.1 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 8.1 s/v A 8.2 s/v A 8.2 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 5 Pauline Street at North Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 0.1 s/v No PM 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 6 Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmin a Street AM D 20.0 s/v C 22.6 s/v C 23.4 s/v C 0.8 s/v No PM 22.7 s/v C 26.1 s/v D 26.9 s/v D 0.8 s/v No 7 Olive Street at Wilhelmin a Street AM D 7.7 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A 0.0 s/v No 8 Pauline Street at Wilhelmin a Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A 0.0 s/v No PM 7.2 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 0.0 s/v No Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 127 of 153 Notes: • Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards • s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) • ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization • HCM = Highway Capacity Manual Roadway Segments An analysis of future (Year 2021) cumulative traffic conditions indicates that all ten (10) of the key roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS A daily under Year 2021 cumulative traffic conditions (i.e. existing plus ambient traffic plus cumulative project traffic). Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the ten (10) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this report. As shown in Table 28 - Year 2021 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, the ten (10) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS A or better daily with the addition of project generated traffic in the Year 2021 traffic condition. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 128 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 129 of 153 Table 28 - Year 2021 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Min. Acc. LOS (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Year 2021 Cumulative Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2021 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Increase Significant (Yes/No) A. La Palma Avenue, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 4D Primary 37,500 22,451 0.599 A 22,478 0.599 A 0.000 No B. Olive Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,969 0.238 A 2,996 0.240 A 0.002 No C. Pauline Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,290 0.103 A 1,370 0.1110 A 0.007 No D. North Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 3,079 0.246 A 3,090 0.247 A 0.001 No E. North Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,433 0.195 A 2,470 0.198 A 0.003 No F. Anaheim Boulevard, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 4D Primary 37,500 18,397 0.491 A 18,397 0.491 A 0.000 No G. Olive Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,862 0.229 A 2,862 0.229 A 0.000 No H. Pauline Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,421 0.114 A 1,421 0.114 A 0.000 No I. Wilhelmina Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,373 0.110 A 1,426 0.114 A 0.004 No J. Wilhelmina Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,216 0.097 A 1,290 0.103 A 0.006 No Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 130 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 131 of 153 Long Term Build Out (Year 2035) with Project Analysis Intersections Projected Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) without project traffic would adversely impact one (1) of the eight (8) key study intersections, Intersection 6 at Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street. The remaining seven (7) key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS under Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions. Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would cumulatively impact one (1) of the eight (8) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. The location projected to operate at an adverse LOS is as follows: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS 6. Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street 90.0 s/v F 117.8 s/v F As shown in Table 29 - Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary, the remaining seven (7) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic to long-term Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions. The traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the eight (8) key study intersections, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. Although the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Wilhelmina Street is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours, this intersection is not impacted per the significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I, as the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not satisfied. The remaining seven (7) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic to long-term buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions. Roadway Segments An analysis of future long-term Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions indicates that all ten (10) of the key roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better daily under long-term Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions. Traffic associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly impact any of the ten (10) key roadway segments, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in Appendix I. As shown in Table 30 - Long- Term Buildout (Year 2035) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary, the ten (10) key roadway segments are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better daily with the addition of project generated traffic to long-term Buildout (Year 2035) traffic conditions. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 132 of 153 This page is intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 133 of 153 Table 29 - Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Key Intersection Time Period Mi n i m u m Ac c e p t a b l e L O S (1) Existing Traffic Conditions (2) Long-Term Buildout Traffic Conditions (3) Long-Term Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions (4) Significant Impact (5) Long-Term Buildout Plus Project With Improvements ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS Increase Yes/ No ICU/HCM LOS 1.Olive Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 0.382 A 0.529 A 0.529 A 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.421 A 0.540 A 0.540 A 0.000 No -- -- 2.Pauline Street at La Palma Avenue AM D 15.6 s/v C 20.8 s/v C 21.5 s/v C 0.7 s/v No -- -- PM 13.1 s/v B 15.8 s/v C 15.8 s/v C 0.9 s/v No -- -- 3. Anaheim Boulevard at North Street AM D 0.425 A 0.681 B 0.681 B 0.000 No -- -- PM 0.428 A 0.673 B 0.673 B 0.001 No -- -- 4.Olive Street at North Street AM D 8.1 s/v A 8.6 s/v A 8.6 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 8.1 s/v A 9.5 s/v A 9.5 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- 5.Pauline Street at North Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.4 s/v A 7.4 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.3 s/v A 7.6 s/v A 7.6 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- 6. Anaheim Boulevard at Wilhelmina Street AM D 20.0 s/v C 277.8 s/v F 92.6 s/v F 2.6 s/v No [a] -- -- PM 22.7 s/v C 250.7 s/v F 124.8 s/v F 7.0 s/v No [a] -- -- 7.Olive Street at Wilhelmina Street AM D 7.7 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 8.1 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.8 s/v A 8.7 s/v A 8.7 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- 8.Pauline Street at Wilhelmina Street AM D 7.2 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- PM 7.2 s/v A 7.5 s/v A 7.5 s/v A 0.0 s/v No -- -- Notes: Bold LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization HCM = Highway Capacity Manual [a] = Although this intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS, this intersection is not impacted per the significant impact criteria specified in this report, as the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not satisfied (refer to Appendix I, Section 7.1). Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 134 of 153 Table 30 - Long-Term Buildout (Year 2035) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary Key Roadway Segment Min. Acc. LOS (1) No. of Existing Lanes (2) Arterial Classification (3) Existing Capacity at LOS “E” (4) Long-Term Buildout Traffic Conditions (5) Year 2035 Buildout Plus Project Traffic Conditions Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS Increase Significant (Yes/No) A. La Palma Avenue, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 4D Primary 37,500 24,645 0.657 B 24,661 0.658 B 0.001 No B. Olive Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 4,326 0.346 A 4,342 0.347 A 0.001 No C. Pauline Street, between La Palma Avenue and North Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,865 0.149 A 1,913 0.153 A 0.004 No D. North Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 4,513 0.361 A 4,519 0.362 A 0.001 No E. North Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 3,567 0.285 A 3,589 0.287 A 0.002 No F. Anaheim Boulevard, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 4D Primary 37,500 25,980 0.693 B 25,980 0.693 B 0.000 No G. Olive Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 4,169 0.334 A 4,169 0.334 A 0.000 No H. Pauline Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,057 0.165 A 2,057 0.165 A 0.000 No I. Wilhelmina Street, between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street C 2U Collector 12,500 2,013 0.161 A 2,045 0.164 A 0.003 No J. Wilhelmina Street, between Olive Street and Pauline Street C 2U Collector 12,500 1,783 0.143 A 1,827 0.146 A 0.003 No Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 135 of 153 Summary The Proposed Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts the eight (8) key study intersections and ten (10) key roadway segments in the Long Term Buildout (Year 2035) Plus Project The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy that establishes measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the circulation system would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact: Orange County Transportation Authority’s 2017 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA 2017) is the applicable CMP for the City and the Project Site. According to Figure 2 in the 2017 Congestion Management Program Highway System 34, in Anaheim, the CMP roadway system includes all or parts of seven streets: Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue (north of SR-91), Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Imperial Highway (north of SR-91). No CMP intersections or CMP roadway segments are in the broader study area. CMP traffic analysis is required for CMP segments where the Proposed Project would generate 2,400 or more daily trips. For developments that would directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a traffic impact analysis is 1,600 or more trips per day. The Proposed Project would not directly access the CMP Highway System link, and therefore the threshold for trip generation would be 2,400 or more daily trips. Since the total trip generation of the Proposed Project is 212 daily trips, the Proposed Project would generate less traffic than the CMP volume threshold. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the CMP network would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact: The closest public airport to the Project Site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Project Site in the City of Fullerton. It is a general aviation airport that serves private, business, and corporate tenants. No private airstrips are in the City. According to the Height Restriction Zone Map in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Fullerton Municipal Airport 35 (ALUC 2004), the Project Site is located outside of areas identified as having height restrictions in place because of the potential to interfere with overhead air traffic. Further, since the Proposed Project would only extend up to three stories in height, it 34 http://www.octa.net/pdf/2017%20Final%20CMP.pdf 35 https://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/FMA_AELUP-November-18-2004.pdf Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 136 of 153 would not be tall enough to have the potential to impede any overhead air traffic, which would occur at several thousand feet overhead. Therefore, no impacts associated with air traffic patterns would occur. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The Property Owner/Developer would be responsible for various on-site circulation improvements (driveways and internal drive aisles), as well as improvements to the existing alley to City standards. These on-site and adjacent improvements would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City, which were established to ensure safe and efficient vehicular circulation on City roadway facilities. In addition, the City reviews all site plans to ensure that adequate line-of-sight is provided at all driveways, making sure that no structures or landscaping block the views of vehicles entering and exiting a site. As such, no sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses would be introduced by the Proposed Project. The Project Site would be accessible through two points of entry: North Street and Wilhelmina Street along the existing alley. Each driveway would transition into an internal drive aisle that would connect to the other drive aisles and provide access to each of the residential units. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible land uses would occur. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact: The Project Site would be accessible through two points of entry: North Street and Wilhelmina Street along the existing alley. Each driveway would transition into an internal drive aisle that would connect to the other drive aisles and provide access to each of the residential units. Each of the Proposed Project’s driveways would be designed and constructed to City standards and comply with City width, clearance, and turning-radius requirements. The Project Site would be accessible to emergency responders during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Because of the Proposed Project’s multiple access driveways and because it would comply with all applicable local requirements related to emergency vehicle access and circulation, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would occur. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 36 was adopted by the City Council on May 23, 2017. The Bicycle Master Plan proposes to build out the bikeway network in the City of Anaheim over the next 20 years. The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a planned Class II 36 http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2027/W-Appendix-B-Bicycle-Master-Plan?bidId= Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 137 of 153 Bikeway on E La Palma Avenue, directly north of the Project Site, a planned Class II Bikeway on E North Street to the west, a planned Class III Bikeway on N Olive Street to the west, a planned Class III Bikeway on E Sycamore Street to the south, and a planned Class II Bikeway on N East Street to the east of the Project Site. Class II Bikeways provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles, with through-travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Class III Bikeways provide a right-of-way on-street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class III bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic in the same travel lane. The Proposed Project is to construct 39 residential units that would house approximately 136 residents, some of whom may ride a bicycle to access the Project Site. Bicycles are allowed on the surrounding public residential streets per the California Vehicle Code. Since the Proposed Project would not extend into the public right-of-way or interfere with the residential street system, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan. Public transit is provided by Orange County Transportation, the public transportation agency in Orange County. The nearest transit route is the Bus No. 38 route. The nearest bus stop is at N Pauline Street and La Palma Avenue, approximately 600 feet north of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not interfere with the Bus No. 38 stops. Implementation of the Proposed Project would add 39 residential units within proximity to a transit stop and would not conflict with existing public transit facilities or routes. Pedestrians would access the Project Site by sidewalks on E North Street and E Wilhelmina Street, which would connect to a four-foot sidewalk on the alley. Internal pedestrian circulation from parking stalls to the residential units would be provided as shown on the Figure 3 - Conceptual Site Plan and Figure 7 - Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan shows the ADA Path of Travel. The Proposed Project would not alter nor remove any pedestrian or bicycle facility, would not include site improvements that would extend into the public right-of-way or interfere with existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or impede the construction of new or the expansion of such existing facilities in the future. The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Transportation and Traffic apply to the Proposed Project. 4.17.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Traffic/Transportation would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 138 of 153 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 4.18.1 Environmental Analysis Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources, as defined in §21074. A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code §21082.3(c). The City of Anaheim has received notification requests from three Native American tribes, who were each notified of the Proposed Project in accordance with AB52. a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No Impact: As discussed in Section 4.5(a), there are no existing buildings or other cultural resources on the Project Site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. None of the historic documents reviewed as part of the cultural resource assessment (Appendix B) indicate that the Project Site is associated with any significant historical event. The records search from the SCCIC indicated that no cultural resources have been Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 139 of 153 previously recorded on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with historical resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan would occur. b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: As discussed in Section 4.5(b), the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the NAHC did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources on or in proximity to the Project Site. The City of Anaheim received requests from three California Native American Tribes to be notified of projects in which the City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency under CEQA. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians – Acjachemen Nation were notified of the Proposed Project on August 1, 2018, and the 30-day notification period lapsed on August 31, 2018, with no response from either tribe. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was notified of the Proposed Project on August 1, 2018 and requested consultation by letter on August 13, 2018. Consultation took place between the City and Chairman Andrew Salas via email and a phone conversation on November 28, 2018 resulted in Chairman Salas agreeing with the implementation of MM-TCR-1 and successfully concluding consultation. There is little potential for the inadvertent discovery of intact subsurface archaeological deposits on the Project Site. Nonetheless, given that a cultural resources evaluation was likely not conducted when the Project Site was originally paved, the possibility exists, albeit remote, that tribal cultural resources of significance could be encountered during subsurface ground- disturbing activities. As such, tribal cultural resources monitoring would be required during ground disturbing activities, as specified in MM-TCR-1. With the incorporation of MM-TCR-1, potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. 4.18.2 Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City a Native American tribal monitoring agreement with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for tribal cultural resource monitoring to take place during subsurface ground-disturbing construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt. Depending on the nature of the find, if the discovery proves to be potentially significant under CEQA, as determined by the tribal representative, additional measures such as data recovery excavation, avoidance of the area of the find, documentation, testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 140 of 153 museum or educational institution, or other appropriate actions may be warranted. The tribal representative shall complete a brief letter report of excavations and findings and submit the report to the City. After the find is appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. At the discretion of the tribal representative, monitoring activities may be allowed to cease if enough evidence is produced that soils underlying the Project Site are not native, undisturbed soils. In this event, the tribal representative shall document all pertinent evidence that justifies the ceasing of monitoring activities and provide it within a brief letter report for the City’s review. Should the City concur with these findings, monitoring shall be permitted to cease within all areas on the Project Site shown to contain only disturbed, non-native fill soils. 4.18.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-TCR-1. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 141 of 153 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ A Sewer Study was completed to determine potential impacts to sewers associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix J – Sewer Study, Psomas, July 2018). Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 142 of 153 4.19.1 Environmental Analysis a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As discussed in Section 4.19(b), Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated in central and northwestern Orange County. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment facilities, which include Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Plant No. 1 has a maximum capacity of 204 mgd and treats an average of 86 mgd. Plant No. 2 receives wastewater from five major sewers as well as from Plant No. 1, has an average flow rate of 124 mgd, and a maximum treatment capacity of 168 mgd. OCSD wastewater facilities have a combined primary treatment capacity of approximately 372 mgd. The average daily influent flow was 184 mgd in Fiscal Year 2015-16, which is 56 percent of the rated capacity.37 OCSD’s facilities had a combined surplus primary treatment capacity of approximately 165 MGD in 2009/2010. OCSD has enough capacity to treat the wastewater flows generated by the Proposed Project. OCSD is required to comply with the NPDES permits issued for Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2. This would ensure that the Proposed Project would not exceed the treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact: The Department of Finance identifies an average household size of 3.47 persons. The Proposed Project would construct 39 residential units on a Project Site that is currently occupied by outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. The Proposed Project would connect to existing water mains that are serviced by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD), the water service provider for the City. Based on the 2015 UWMP, which reported a baseline water use of 203 GPCD, an estimated 136 new residents would result in a water demand of approximately 27,608 GPCD or 31 afy. Under normal conditions, the 2015 UWMP predicts total potable and raw water demand of 61,895 afy in 2020, and 66,910 afy in 2030. Of the total projected water supply of 62,050 afy in 2020 and 67,065 afy in 2030 under normal year conditions, 43,435 afy in 2020 and 46,946 afy in 2030 are estimated to be groundwater. The estimated water demand for the Proposed Project is 31 afy, which is nominal compared to the projected supply. The City would have enough water supply to service the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction or expansion of water facilities and would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 37 2009-2010 Annual Report: Operations and Maintenance; Orange County Sanitation District; see: http://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=10348, p. 1.12 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 143 of 153 According to the Sewer Study, the Project Site would connect to the existing 6” VCP sewer running along alley along the west side of the Project Site. This sewer line would be abandoned and replaced with an 8” sewer line. For the purposes of the Sewer Study and to be conservative, the Proposed Project flow would be all be loaded to manhole SW082219. However, there are six 6-plexes of residences and one 3-plex that could each potentially be sewered to a single sewer line and then connected directly to the existing 6” sewer (to be abandoned and replaced with an 8” sewer line) if the developer decides to pursue this option and the City is in concurrence. The Sewer Study analyzed a 39-unit residential development on 1.57-acres, with a flow generation factor of 240 gallons per day (gpd)/dwelling unit, which results in a flow rate of 9,360 gpd of wastewater. The Existing Condition Scenario plus the project flows and depth-to-Diameter (d/D) ratios for the sewer collection system from the hydraulic model for the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CAMPSS) (Appendix J, Table 2) shows that there are no deficiencies in the existing condition. The Buildout Condition Scenario plus the project flows and depth-to-Diameter (d/D) ratios for the sewer collection system from the hydraulic model for the CAMPSS (Appendix J, Table 3) shows that there are no additional deficiencies in the buildout condition. The existing sewer collection system was projected to have enough capacity to serve the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with sewer capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Wastewater from the Proposed Project would enter the City’s sewer system and discharge into the manhole SW082219. Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated at OCSD’s Reclamation Plant No. 1, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley, and Treatment Plant No. 2 located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach. OCSD wastewater facilities have a combined primary treatment capacity of approximately 372 million gallons per day (mgd). The average daily influent flow was 184 mgd in FY 2015-16, which is 56% of the rated capacity. OCSD’s facilities had a combined surplus primary treatment capacity of approximately 165 mgd in 2009/2010. The amount of wastewater generated by the Proposed Project is nominal compared to the average daily amount of wastewater treated by OCSD’s wastewater treatment facilities and their combined surplus capacity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction or expansion of water treatment facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would construct 39 residential units on a Project Site that is currently occupied by outdoor surface storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. Drainage on the Project Site currently flows from east to west to the gutter located at the alley and then drains towards East North Street. Under the operating condition, the Project Site drainage would be like the existing condition, except that the first flush would be captured and infiltrated with the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) Detention System. According to the PWQMP (Appendix G), the Proposed Project would decrease the amount of impervious areas Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 144 of 153 and would be designed to minimize run-off. All areas on the Project Site would drain to the common drive and access aisles. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix F), the Proposed Project would result in decreased flow rates from the existing condition due to the reduction in impervious surfaces from 100% to 78.4% of the Project Site. The CMP Detention System would be designed to temporarily store and infiltrate runoff, primarily from rooftops and another impervious area. The catch basin inserts would be used as pre-treatment that removes hydrocarbons, trash, and sediments from stormwater runoff. Non-structural BMPs such as activity restrictions, basin inspection, street sweeping, and common area landscape maintenance and litter control would also contribute towards runoff control and water quality protection. In addition, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to comply with the NPDES permit requirements to reduce any potential water quality impacts. The reduced discharges from Project Site post-development would effectively improve the drainage characteristics of the Project Site and drainage would follow existing conditions. Therefore, potential impacts associated with increased runoff such that the construction of new or expanded facilities would be required would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan, the City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from City-owned wells and imported water from the MWD. Based on the 2015 UWMP, which reported a baseline water use of 203 GPCD, and an estimated 136 new residents, water demand would be approximately 27,608 GPCD or 31 afy. Under normal conditions, the 2015 UWMP predicts total potable and raw water demand of 61,895 afy in 2020, and 66,910 afy in 2030. Of the total projected water supply of 62,050 afy in 2020 and 67,065 afy in 2030 under normal year conditions, 43,435 afy in 2020 and 46,946 afy in 2030 are estimated to be groundwater. Imported water supplies would be available and are expected to be greater than the estimated water demand. The 2015 UWMP indicates that the available water supply is adequate to meet the current and projected demand in the City’s service area through 2040. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, the Proposed Project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units and would not be considered a water demand project. Water demand for the Proposed Project would equate to less than one percent of the total water supply. Based on the 2015 UWMP, it is not expected that expanded entitlements would be needed to provide water for the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with water supply would occur. e) Would the project 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? Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 145 of 153 Less Than Significant Impact: Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley, and Treatment Plant No. 2 located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach. Plant No. 1 has a maximum capacity of 204 mgd and treats an average of 86 mgd. Plant No. 2 receives wastewater from five major sewers as well as from Plant No. 1 and has a maximum treatment capacity of 168 mgd. According to OCSD’s 2016-17 Annual Report 38, OCSD wastewater facilities have a combined primary treatment capacity of approximately 372 mgd. The average daily influent flow was 207 mgd in fiscal year 2009/2010, which is 56 percent of the rated capacity. OCSD’s facilities had a combined surplus primary treatment capacity of approximately 165 MGD in 2009/2010. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 9,360 gallons of wastewater per day (Appendix J). The amount of wastewater generated is nominal compared to the average daily amount of wastewater treated by OCSD’s wastewater facilities and its surplus capacity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact: OC Waste & Recycling operates three active landfills in Orange County: Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea; the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill near Irvine; and the Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Project Site and would most likely receive waste from the Proposed Project. This landfill has a daily maximum of 8,000 tons per day. The Proposed Project would construct 39 residential units on the Project Site with an estimated 136 residents. Using CalRecycle’s 2014 generation rate of 4.5 pounds per resident per day,39 the Proposed Project would generate approximately 612 pounds per day, or 0.306 tons per day of solid waste. According to OC Waste & Recycling, the Olinda Alpha Landfill received a daily average of 5,322 tons in 2013 and has an average residual capacity of 2,678 tons per day. The 0.306 tons per day of solid waste generated by the Proposed Project is nominal compared to Olinda Alpha Landfill’s average residual capacity of 2,678 tons per day. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section 4.19(f), solid waste generated by the Proposed Project would be disposed of at one of the three landfills in Orange County. Disposal of 38 https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=24637 39 CalRecycle, California’s 2014 Per Capita Disposal Rate; see: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/default.htm Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 146 of 153 solid waste would be required to comply with all federal state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This would include providing receptacles for recyclables and garbage, and green waste would be hauled away by a landscape maintenance company hired by the homeowners’ association. Therefore, potential impacts associated with compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. h) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? No Impact: The APUD Electrical Division would provide Electricity for the Proposed Project. APUD’s distribution system consists of approximately 3,400 circuit miles of transmission and distribution lines, over 1,600 miles of which are underground. To facilitate the safe and efficient transfer of electricity to residences and businesses, 13 distribution substations are located throughout the City. APUD has an annual historic system peak demand of 593 megawatts and provides more than 2.9 million megawatt-hours annually to its customers.40 It is anticipated that APUD would have the capabilities to meet future demands. Therefore, no impacts associated with electrical service would occur. i) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? No Impact: Southern California Gas Company provides gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City. The availability of natural gas service is based upon current gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and Federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service would be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Development on the Project Site would be required to comply with standard regulatory requirements related to natural gas. Therefore, no impacts associated with natural gas service would occur. j) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? No Impact: AT&T would provide telephone service for the Proposed Project. It is anticipated that AT&T would have enough capabilities to provide service for future development on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with telephone service would occur. 40 City of Anaheim, About the Utilities Fact Book (http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=4248) Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 147 of 153 k) Would the project result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? No Impact: Time Warner Cable (TWC) would provide Television and data service for the Proposed Project. It is anticipated that TWC would have enough capabilities to provide service for future development on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts associated with television service would occur. 4.19.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Utilities and Service Systems apply to the Proposed Project. 4.19.3 Conclusion Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Utilities and Service Systems would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 148 of 153 4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance Does the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)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)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)Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?☐☒☐☐ a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: As previously described, the Proposed Project is an infill development project located in an urbanized area of the City and the Project Site is not within or adjacent to and would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. According to the Archeological and Paleontological Records Searches (Appendix B) and Sacred Land File Search (Appendix C), no cultural resources have been recorded within the Project Site, and the Project Site does not contain any resources that are important to major periods of California history or prehistory. Although the Project Site doesn’t contain any documented cultural resources, there is a possibility that undiscovered, buried resources (including paleontological and tribal cultural resources) might be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL-1, MM-PAL-1 and MM-TCR-1 would reduce any potential impacts associated with any undiscovered resources to less than significant and ensure that the Proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 149 of 153 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant project-specific impacts to noise, paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources and traffic. However, all mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic analyses presented in Section 4.3 and Section 4.17, respectively, of this document considered cumulative impacts and determined that cumulative air and traffic impacts would less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: All potential impacts of the Proposed Project have been identified, and mitigation measures have been provided, where applicable, to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Upon implementation of mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse impacts on human beings either directly or indirectly. No additional mitigation measures would be required. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 150 of 153 5 LIST OF PREPARERS Sagecrest Planning & Environmental Amy Vazquez, Principal Subconsultants Greg Tonkovich, Vista Environmental Pat Maxon, VCS Environmental Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. IDS Group Dan Kloos, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers Mike Swan, Psomas City Staff Planning Services Division Susan Kim, AICP, LEED AP ND, Principal Planner Nicholas Taylor, Associate Planner Ignacio Rincon, Associate Planner Development Services Division Rafael Cobian, Principal Traffic Engineer Anaheim Public Utilities Jonathan Sanks, Environmental Services Manager Aladdin Shaikh, Water Engineering Anaheim Public Library Thomas Edelblute Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 151 of 153 6 REFERENCES Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis, Downtown Anaheim 39 Project, Vista Environmental, July 2018 Appendix B – Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, VCS Environmental, October 2018 Appendix C – Sacred Lands File Search and AB52 Tribal Consultation, Sagecrest Planning & Environmental, October 2018 Appendix D – Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation and Percolation Study, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., January 2018 Appendix E – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Limited Phase II Investigation, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. January 2018 Appendix F – Preliminary Hydrology Report, IDS Group, July 2018 Appendix G - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, IDS Group, July 2018 Appendix H – Noise Impact Analysis, Vista Environmental, October 2018 Appendix I – Traffic Impact Analysis, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, July 2018 Appendix J – Sewer Study, Psomas, July 2018 US Geological Survey https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Anaheim_20150310_TM_geo.pdf Airport Land Use Commission. Orange County Airport Planning Areas Certified 7/21/05. http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/airportlu.pdf California Department of Conservation. Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf (accessed October 9, 2018). California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Orange County Important Farmland 2012. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/ora12.pdf (accessed October 9, 2018). California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, (Provisional as of Jan. 1, 2018, released May 2018) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed November 26, 2018). California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. Area Designations Maps/ State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm (accessed October 9, 2018). CalRecycle. California’s 2014 Per Capita Disposal Rate. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 152 of 153 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/default.htm (accessed October 9, 2018). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Hospital Heliport Dataplates. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/helipads/dataplates/index.htm (accessed October 9, 2018). Center for Demographic Research, California State University Fullerton. Orange County Jurisdiction Demographics: Anaheim; http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/_resources/pdf/progressreport/Anaheim.pdf (accessed October 9, 2018) City of Anaheim. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. City of Anaheim. Anaheim Fire Department Website. http://www.anaheim.net/sectionnew.asp?id=73 (accessed September 18, 2018). City of Anaheim. Anaheim Municipal Code, October 2018. City of Anaheim. Anaheim Police Department Website. http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=124 (accessed September 18, 2018). City of Anaheim. City of Anaheim General Plan. May 2004. City of Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. City of Anaheim. Library Website. http://library.anaheim.net/Library/ (accessed September 18, 2018) City of Anaheim. Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 SCH #2003041105. Certified May 25, 2004. Environmental Protection Agency. Green Book, Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/ancl.html (accessed October 9, 2018). Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Address Search. http://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=415%20south%20anaheim%20hills%20road%2C%20anaheim%2C%20CA; flood map 06059C0157J, effective 12/03/2009 (accessed September 18, 2018). Orange County Public Works Department, Watersheds Division. Santa Ana River Watershed. http://ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/snariver (accessed September 16, 2018). Orange County Sanitation District. 2009-2010 Annual Report: Operations and Maintenance. http://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=10348 (accessed September 18, 2018). Orange County Water District. 2013-2014 Engineer’s Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District. February 2015. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Page 153 of 153 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15, September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-%28ghg%29-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed September 16, 2018). Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  1  of  7   Pr o j e c t  Na m e :    Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   Ca s e  Nu m b e r s :    De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  Am e n d m e n t  (G P A  20 1 8 ‐00 5 2 4 )   Re c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  (R C L  20 1 8 ‐00 3 1 7 )    Co n d i t i o n a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  (C U P  20 1 8 ‐05 9 8 0 )    Te n t a t i v e  Tr a c t  Ma p  (T T M  18 1 8 2 )   Pr o j e c t  Lo c a t i o n :    Th e  1. 5 7 ‐ac r e  pr o j e c t  si t e  is  lo c a t e d  so u t h  of  No r t h  St r e e t  an d  no r t h  of  Wi l h e l m i n a  St r e e t ,  ap p r ox i m a t e l y  1,200  feet  to   th e  we s t  of  Ea s t  St r e e t ;  48 0  fe e t  to  th e  so u t h  of  La  Pa l m a  Av e n u e .  AP N :  03 5 ‐20 5 ‐01 .   Pr o j e c t   De s c r i p t i o n : Th e   Ap p l i c a n t   pr o p o s e s   to   de m o l i s h   an   ex i s t i n g   ou t d o o r   su r f a c e   pa r k i n g   lo t / s t o r a g e   ya r d   an d   co n s t r u c t  39  attached,  si n g l e ‐fa m i l y  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s .  Th e  Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  ut i l i z e s  th e  RM ‐3. 5  st a n d a r d s  at  a  de n s i t y  of  24.84  units/acre, and   fe a t u r e s  th r e e ‐st o r y  ho m e s  wi t h  en t r y  co u r t y a r d s ,  a   pr i v a t e  dr i v e s ,  fe n c i n g ,   si d e w a l k s  an d  la n d s c a p i n g  separating  the   ex i s t i n g  si n g l e ‐fa m i l y  re s i d e n t i a l  to  th e  we s t .  Th e  Ap p l i c a n t  is  pr o p o s i n g  th e  fo l l o w i n g  se t b a c k  mo d i f i c a t i o n s :  three  feet   fr o m  th e  ea s t  pr o p e r t y  li n e  to  th e  bu i l d i n g s  wh e r e  15  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  th r e e  fe e t  of  la n d s c a p e  setback  from  the   ea s t  pr o p e r t y  li n e  wh e r e  fi v e  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  24  fe e t  be t w e e n  bu i l d i n g s  wh e r e  40  fe e t  would  be  required; 41   fe e t  fr o m  th e  Si n g l e  Fa m i l y  Re s i d e n t i a l  Zo n e  to  th e  we s t  wh e r e  55  fe e t  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d ;  in cl u s i o n  of  the  three ‐foot   pa r k w a y   an d   fo u r ‐fo o t   si d e w a l k   wi t h i n   th e   re q u i r e d   10 ‐fo o t   la n d s c a p e   se t b a c k   fr o m   th e   al l e y ;  and  a  seven ‐foot   re d u c t i o n  of  th e  re q u i r e d  10 ‐fo o t  la n d s c a p e  se t b a c k  fo r  pa r k i n g  sp a c e s  an d  Re c r e a t i o n a l ‐Le i s u r e  common  space  area.  In   ad d i t i o n ,   th e   ex i s t i n g   al l e y   wo u l d   be   wi d e n e d   to   20   fe e t   pe r   Ci t y   st a n d a r d s   an d   th e   ex i s t i n g   se w e r  lin e  in  the  alley   wo u l d   be   re p l a c e d .   Th e   tw o   an d   fo u r ‐be d r o o m   ho m e s   wo u l d   ra n g e   in   si z e   fr o m   1, 2 1 5   to   1, 7 7 9  SF. All  homes  would   ha v e  a   tw o ‐ca r  ga r a g e   an d   th e r e  wo u l d   be   28  op e n  pa r k i n g  sp a c e s ,  fo r  a   to t a l   of  10 6  sp a c e s  (2 . 7  parking  spaces/unit,  ex c e e d i n g  th e  pa r k i n g  re q u i r e m e n t  by  2  sp a c e s ) . AT T A C H M E N T N O . 8 Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  2  of  7     Te r m s   an d   De f i n i t i o n s :    1. Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   –  Ow n e r   or   de v e l o p e r   of   Do w n t o w n   An a h e i m   39   Re s i d e n t i a l   Pr o j e c t .     2. En v i r o n m e n t a l   Eq u i v a l e n t / T i m i n g   –  An y   mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e   an d  ti m i n g   th e r e o f ,   su b j e c t  to   th e   ap p r o v a l  of   th e   Ci t y ,  wh i c h   wi l l   ha v e   th e   sa m e   or   su p e r i o r   re s u l t   an d   wi l l   ha v e   th e   sa m e   or   su p e r i o r   ef f e c t   on   th e   en v i r o n m e n t .   Th e   Pl a n n i n g   De p a r t m e n t ,   in   co n j u n c t i o n   wi t h   an y  ap p r o p r i a t e   ag e n c i e s   or   Ci t y   de p a r t m e n t s ,   sh a l l   de t e r m i n e   th e   ad e q u a c y   of   an y   pr o p o s e d   "e n v i r o n m e n t a l   eq u i v a l e n t / t i m i n g "   an d ,   if   de t e r m i n e d   ne c e s s a r y ,   ma y   re f e r   sa i d   de t e r m i n a t i o n   to   th e   Pl a n n i n g   Co m m i s s i o n .   An y   co s t s   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   in f o r m a t i o n   re q u i r e d   in   or d e r   to   de t e r m i n e   en v i r o n m e n t a l   eq u i v a l e n c y /   ti m i n g  sh a l l   be   do n e   by  th e  pr o p e r t y  ow n e r / d e v e l o p e r .  St a f f   ti m e  fo r  re v i e w s  wi l l  be  ch a r g e d  on  a  ti m e   an d  ma t e r i a l s  ba s i s   at  th e  ra t e  in  th e  Ci t y ' s  ad o p t e d  Fe e  Sc h e d u l e .     3. Ti m i n g  – Th i s  is  th e  po i n t  wh e r e  a  mi t i g a t i o n  me a s u r e  mu s t  be   mo n i t o r e d   fo r   co m p l i a n c e .  In   th e   ca s e   wh e r e   mu l t i p l e  ac t i o n   it e m s   ar e   in d i c a t e d ,   it   is   th e   fi r s t   po i n t   wh e r e   co m p l i a n c e   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   th e   mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e   mu s t   be   mo n i t o r e d .   On c e   th e   in i t i a l   ac t i o n   it e m   ha s   be e n   co m p l i e d   wi t h ,   no   ad d i t i o n a l   mo n i t o r i n g   pu r s u a n t  to   th e   Mi t i g a t i o n   Mo n i t o r i n g   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n   wi l l   oc c u r ,   as   ro u t i n e   Ci t y   pr a c t i c e s   an d   pr o c e d u r e s   wi l l   en s u r e   th a t   th e   in t e n t   of   th e   me a s u r e   ha s   be e n   co m p l i e d   wi t h .   Fo r   ex a m p l e ,   if   th e   ti m i n g   is   "t o   be   sh o w n   on   ap p r o v e d   bu i l d i n g   pl a n s "   su b s e q u e n t   to   is s u a n c e   of   th e   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  co n s i s t e n t  with  the  approved  plans  will   be   fi n a l   bu i l d i n g   an d   zo n i n g   in s p e c t i o n s  pursuant  to  the   bu i l d i n g   pe r m i t  to  en s u r e  co m p l i a n c e .     4. Re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   Mo n i t o r i n g  –  Shall  mean  that  compliance   wi t h   th e   su b j e c t  mi t i g a t i o n   me a s u r e ( s )  shall  be  reviewed  and   de t e r m i n e d   ad e q u a t e   by   al l   de p a r t m e n t s  listed  for  each   mi t i g a t i o n  me a s u r e .  Ou t s i d e  pu b l i c  agency  review  is  limited  to   th o s e   pu b l i c   ag e n c i e s  sp e c i f i e d   in  the  Mitigation  Monitoring   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n   wh i c h   ha v e  permit  authority  in   co n j u n c t i o n   wi t h  th e  mi t i g a t i o n  measure.    5. On g o i n g   Mi t i g a t i o n   Me a s u r e s   – The  mitigation  measures   th a t   ar e   de s i g n a t e d   to   oc c u r   on   an  ongoing  basis  as  part  of   th i s   Mi t i g a t i o n   Mo n i t o r i n g   an d  Reporting  Plan  will  be   mo n i t o r e d  in   th e   fo r m   of   an   an n u a l  letter  from  the  property   ow n e r / d e v e l o p e r  in   Ja n u a r y   of   ea c h  year  demonstrating  how   co m p l i a n c e   wi t h   th e   su b j e c t   me a s u r e ( s )  has  been  achieved.  Wh e n  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h   a   me a s u r e  has  been  demonstrated  for   a   pe r i o d   of   on e   ye a r ,   mo n i t o r i n g  of  the  measure  will  be   de e m e d  to   be   sa t i s f i e d   an d   no  fu r t h e r  monitoring  will  occur.  Fo r   me a s u r e s   th a t   ar e   to   be   monitored  "Ongoing  During   Co n s t r u c t i o n " ,   th e   an n u a l  le t t e r   will  review  those  measures   on l y   wh i l e   co n s t r u c t i o n   is   oc c u r r i n g ;  monitoring  will  be   di s c o n t i n u e d   af t e r   co n s t r u c t i o n   is  complete. A  final  annual   le t t e r  wi l l  be  pr o v i d e d  at  th e  cl o s e  of  construction.    6. Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t   –   Fo r   pu r p o s e s  of  this  Mitigation  Monitoring   an d   Re p o r t i n g   Pl a n ,   a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  shall  be  defined  as  any   pe r m i t  is s u e d  fo r  co n s t r u c t i o n  of  a  new  building  or  structural   ex p a n s i o n   or   mo d i f i c a t i o n   of   an y  existing  building  but  shall   no t   in c l u d e   an y   pe r m i t s   re q u i r e d  for  interior  tenant   im p r o v e m e n t s   or   mi n o r   ad d i t i o n s  to  an  existing  structure  or   bu i l d i n g .   Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  3  of  7     MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   V.  CU L T U R A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐CU L ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e  Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r  sh a l l  in c l u d e  a  no t e  on  th e   pl a n s   th a t   in   th e   ev e n t   of   th e   in a d v e r t e n t   di s c o v e r y   of   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s   (i n c l u d i n g   hi s t o r i c a l ,   ar c h a e o l o g i c a l ,   an d   tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s )   du r i n g   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s ,   wo r k   wi t h i n   10 0   fe e t   wo u l d   be   ha l t e d   un t i l   th e   di s c o v e r y   ca n   be   ev a l u a t e d   by   a   qu a l i f i e d   ar c h a e o l o g i s t ,   th e   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ( s )   fr o m   co n s u l t i n g   tr i b e s   (o r   ot h e r   ap p r o p r i a t e   et h n i c / c u l t u r a l   gr o u p   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ) ,   an d   th e   Co m m u n i t y   De v e l o p m e n t   Di r e c t o r   or   th e i r   de s i g n e e ,   to   an a l y z e   th e   si g n i f i c a n c e   of   th e   fi n d .    Co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   co n t i n u e   in   ot h e r   ar e a s .   If   th e   ar c h a e o l o g i s t   an d / o r   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ( s )   de t e r m i n e   th a t   th e   fi n d   is   si g n i f i c a n t ,   ad d i t i o n a l   wo r k ,   su c h   as   da t a   re c o v e r y   ex c a v a t i o n   or   re s o u r c e   re c o v e r y ,   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d   an d   wo u l d   be   di s c u s s e d  in  co n s u l t a t i o n  wi t h  th e  ap p r o p r i a t e  re g u l a t o r y   ag e n c y  an d / o r  tr i b a l  gr o u p .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t         Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  4  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   IX .  NO I S E   MM ‐NO I ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l   in c l u d e   on   th e   bu i l d i n g  pl a n s  th e  co n s t r u c t i o n  of  a  mi n i m u m  12 ‐fo o t  hi g h   so u n d  wa l l ,  as  me a s u r e d  fr o m  th e  Pr o j e c t  Si t e  si d e  of  th e   wa l l ,   to   en c l o s e   th e   re c r e a t i o n a l   op e n   sp a c e  at  th e   no r t h   en d  of  th e  Pr o j e c t  Si t e ,  as  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  7,  Co n c e p t u a l   Wa l l   an d   Fe n c e   Pl a n .    Th e   wa l l   wo u l d   be g i n   at   th e   no r t h e a s t   co r n e r   of   th e   th r e e ‐pl e x   bu i l d i n g   an d   co n t i n u e   no r t h   al o n g   th e   ea s t   pr o p e r t y   li n e ,   th e n   we s t   al o n g   th e   no r t h e r l y   pr o p e r t y   li n e   fo r   57   li n e a r   fe e t .   Th e   so u n d   wa l l   sh a l l   be   co n s t r u c t e d   wi t h   co n c r e t e   ma s o n r y   un i t s   (c m u )   th a t  ar e  fr e e  of  an y  cu t o u t s  or  op e n i n g s .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     MM ‐NO I ‐2   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y   Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l   in c l u d e   on   th e   bu i l d i n g  pl a n s  th e  re q u i r e m e n t  th a t  ac o u s t i c  pe r f o r m a n c e   du a l   pa n e   wi n d o w s   wi t h   a   mi n i m u m   So u n d   Tr a n s m i s s i o n   Cl a s s   (S T C )   ra t i n g   of   37   ST C   be   in s t a l l e d   on   al l   be d r o o m   wi n d o w s  lo c a t e d  on  th e  no r t h ,  ea s t ,  an d  so u t h  si d e s  of  th e   re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s .   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  5  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   XI I I .  PA L E O N T O L O G I C A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐PA L ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e  Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r  sh a l l  su b m i t  to  th e  Ci t y  of   An a h e i m   Pu b l i c   Wo r k s   De p a r t m e n t   ev i d e n c e   th a t   a   qu a l i f i e d  pa l e o n t o l o g i s t  ha s  be e n  re t a i n e d  fo r  mo n i t o r i n g   of  gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  oc c u r r i n g  at  a  de p t h  of  fo u r   fe e t   or   gr e a t e r   be l o w   gr o u n d   su r f a c e .   If   pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l   re s o u r c e s   ar e   un e a r t h e d   du r i n g   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s   as s o c i a t e d   wi t h   th e   Pr o p o s e d   Pr o j e c t ,   th e   Co n t r a c t o r  sh a l l  ce a s e  al l  ea r t h ‐di s t u r b i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  wi t h i n   50   fe e t   of   th e   di s c o v e r y   an d   co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   co n t i n u e   in   ot h e r   ar e a s .   Th e   pa l e o n t o l o g i s t   sh a l l   co l l e c t   an d   pr o c e s s   se d i m e n t   sa m p l e s   to   de t e r m i n e   th e   sm a l l   fo s s i l   po t e n t i a l   on   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e .   Th e   pa l e o n t o l o g i s t   sh a l l  ev a l u a t e  th e  re s o u r c e  an d  de t e r m i n e  if  th e  di s c o v e r y   is   si g n i f i c a n t .   If   th e   di s c o v e r y   pr o v e s   to   be   si g n i f i c a n t ,   ad d i t i o n a l   wo r k   su c h   as   da t a   re c o v e r y   ex c a v a t i o n   or   re s o u r c e   re c o v e r y   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d   an d   sh a l l   be   di s c u s s e d  in  co n s u l t a t i o n  wi t h  th e  ap p r o p r i a t e  re g u l a t o r y   ag e n c y .  An y  fo s s i l s  re c o v e r e d  du r i n g  mi t i g a t i o n  sh o u l d  be   de p o s i t e d   in   an   ac c r e d i t e d   an d   pe r m a n e n t   sc i e n t i f i c   in s t i t u t i o n   fo r   th e   be n e f i t   of   cu r r e n t   an d   fu t u r e   ge n e r a t i o n s .   Pu b l i c  Wo r k s   De p a r t m e n t       Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  6  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   XV I I .  TR I B A L  CU L T U R A L  RE S O U R C E S   MM ‐TC R ‐1   Pr i o r  to  th e   is s u a n c e  of  a   gr a d i n g  pe r m i t   Th e   Pr o p e r t y  Ow n e r / D e v e l o p e r   sh a l l  su b m i t   to   th e   Ci t y   a   Na t i v e   Am e r i c a n   tr i b a l   mo n i t o r i n g   ag r e e m e n t   wi t h   th e   Ga b r i e l e ñ o  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s  – Ki z h  Na t i o n  fo r  tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e   mo n i t o r i n g   to   ta k e   pl a c e   du r i n g   su b s u r f a c e   gr o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g   co n s t r u c t i o n   ac t i v i t i e s .   If   tr i b a l   cu l t u r a l   re s o u r c e s   ar e   en c o u n t e r e d   du r i n g   gr o u n d   di s t u r b i n g   ac t i v i t i e s ,   wo r k   in   th e   im m e d i a t e   ar e a   mu s t   ha l t .  De p e n d i n g  on  th e  na t u r e  of  th e  fi n d ,  if  th e  di s c o v e r y   pr o v e s   to   be   po t e n t i a l l y   si g n i f i c a n t   un d e r   CE Q A ,   as   de t e r m i n e d   by   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ,   ad d i t i o n a l   me a s u r e s  su c h  as  da t a  re c o v e r y  ex c a v a t i o n ,  av o i d a n c e  of   th e   ar e a   of   th e   fi n d ,   do c u m e n t a t i o n ,   te s t i n g ,   da t a   re c o v e r y ,   re b u r i a l ,   ar c h i v a l   re v i e w   an d / o r   tr a n s f e r   to   th e   ap p r o p r i a t e   mu s e u m   or   ed u c a t i o n a l   in s t i t u t i o n ,   or   ot h e r   ap p r o p r i a t e   ac t i o n s   ma y   be   wa r r a n t e d .   Th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e   sh a l l   co m p l e t e   a   br i e f   le t t e r   re p o r t   of   ex c a v a t i o n s  an d  fi n d i n g s  an d  su b m i t  th e  re p o r t  to  th e  Ci t y .   Af t e r  th e  fi n d  is  ap p r o p r i a t e l y  mi t i g a t e d ,  wo r k  in  th e  ar e a   ma y  re s u m e .      At   th e   di s c r e t i o n   of   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e ,   mo n i t o r i n g   ac t i v i t i e s   ma y   be   al l o w e d   to   ce a s e   if   en o u g h   ev i d e n c e   is   pr o d u c e d   th a t   so i l s   un d e r l y i n g   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e   ar e   no t   Pl a n n i n g  an d   Bu i l d i n g   De p a r t m e n t     Do w n t o w n  An a h e i m  39  Re s i d e n t i a l  Pr o j e c t   De v e l o p m e n t  Pr o j e c t  No .  20 1 7 ‐00 1 2 4   Mi t i g a t i o n  Mo n i t o r i n g  an d  Re p o r t i n g  Pl a n  No .  36 1   Pa g e  7  of  7   MI T I G A T I O N   NU M B E R   TI M I N G   ME A S U R E   RE S P O N S I B L E  FO R   MO N I T O R I N G   COMPLETION   na t i v e ,   un d i s t u r b e d   so i l s .   In   th i s   ev e n t ,   th e   tr i b a l   re p r e s e n t a t i v e  sh a l l  do c u m e n t  al l  pe r t i n e n t  ev i d e n c e  th a t   ju s t i f i e s  th e  ce a s i n g  of  mo n i t o r i n g  ac t i v i t i e s  an d  pr o v i d e  it   wi t h i n  a  br i e f  le t t e r  re p o r t  fo r  th e  Ci t y ’ s  re v i e w .  Sh o u l d  th e   Ci t y   co n c u r   wi t h   th e s e   fi n d i n g s ,   mo n i t o r i n g   sh a l l   be   pe r m i t t e d   to   ce a s e   wi t h i n   al l   ar e a s   on   th e   Pr o j e c t   Si t e   sh o w n  to  co n t a i n  on l y  di s t u r b e d ,  no n ‐na t i v e  fi l l  so i l s .     2390 E. Orangewood Avenue • Suite 510 • Anaheim, CA 92806 July 24, 2018 David See Principal Planner Anaheim Planning Department 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, 1st Floor Anaheim, CA 92806 Subject: Application for 39 Residential Units on 1.57 acre site at 740 E. La Palma Ave. in Anaheim Dear Mr. See: 740 E La Palma, LLC is submitting the “Downtown Anaheim 39” entitlement application to the City of Anaheim for its review and approval for the future development of 39 attached townhome (for-sale) residential units. The 1.57 acre project site is located at 740 E. La Palma Ave. We are excited to remove the existing outdoor storage yard and replace it with high-quality, competitively priced for-sale townhome neighborhood in the heart of downtown Anaheim. The project will assist the City in meeting its allocation of housing units contained in the Housing Element and improve the City’s imbalance of jobs to housing and further stabilize this area of the city by increasing homeownership. The following entitlements are requested as part of the proposed development: 1.General Plan Amendment to change the site’s existing General Plan Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to Mid Density Residential. This proposed General Plan density is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The site is surrounded by Medium Density to the southwest, Railroad and Low-Medium Density to the east, north and south, and Low Density to the west and north. Moreover, the property is currently developed with an outdoor storage yard. The project would replace this less compatible use with new quality housing for Anaheim residents. 2.Tentative Tract Map to create fee lots for the townhomes, and common lots for the private streets and other common areas for future development of 39 attached homes and the associated parking and landscape areas. The “design and improvement” of the subdivision has been prepared to be consistent with the proposed Mid Density Residential General Plan designation. 3.Reclassification to change the site's existing zoning from I (Industrial) to RM-3.5 (Multiple-Family Residential). The RM-3.5 zone allows for the density that is compatible with residential densities surrounding the project site to the east, north and south; and the RM -3.5 standards will ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the project will eliminate a less compatible outdoor storage yard and replace it with quality for -sale housing at competitive rates. ATTACHMENT NO. 9 The project will provide Anaheim residents wi th additional housing options and will bring greater homeownership to downtown Anaheim further stabilizing the area and contributing to the production of new housing prescribed in the City’s Housing Element . 4. Conditional Use Permit to permit 39 single-family attached homes on approximately 1.57 acres. The project is consistent with the land use of the surrounding neighborhood. The project is being constructed per the City’s RM-3.5 standards. Existing Site Conditions The site is part of a larger property that is used for self storage of RV’s, boats, etc., under an approved conditional use permit. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family, apartments, townhomes and industrial. Our proposed development will bring this portion of the property (between North and Wilhelmina Streets) into greater conformity with the prevailing residential land use in this area of the City and also providing public improvements that benefit the area including a new sewer line an d widening the alley to comply with city standards. The remaining industrial office will remain on the portion of the site between North St. and La Palma Ave. and is not part of this application. Proposed Site Plan The project consists of 39 attached townhome-style homes on approximately 1.57 acres (density is 24.84 units/acre). The project utilizes the RM-3.5 standards and features three-story homes with entry courtyards, a private drives, fencing, sidewalks and landscaping separating the existing single -family residential. In addition, the existing alley will be widened to a full 20 feet per City standards. The two and four-bedroom homes will range in size from 1,215 to 1,779 SF. All homes will have a two-car garage and there will be 28 open parking spaces, for a total of 106 spaces (2.7 parking spaces/unit, exceeding the parking requirement by 2 spaces). Please refer to the attached project exhibits for complete conceptual details of the proposed development. Submittal Package Listed below is a summary of the items included in the submittal package as required by Anaheim's Development Application Submittal Checklist: 1. Completed Development Application Form 2. Completed Environmental/Project Information Form 3. Justification for General Plan Amendment 4. Justification for Reclassification 5. Photographs of project site and surrounding area (Submitted Digitally) 6. Preliminary Title Report 7. Site Plan (12 copies) 8. Floor Plan, Elevations, and Roof Plan (12 copies) 9. Color Elevations 10. Color and Material Board 11. Tentative Tract Map (15 copies) 12. Preliminary Grading Plan (4 copies) 13. Preliminary Utility Plan (4 copies) 14. Preliminary WQMP (3 copies) 15. Drainage/Hydrology Report (3 copies) 16. Soils and Geotechnical Report (3 copies) 17. Traffic Study (3 copies) 18. Sewer Study (previously submitted/reviewed/approved by Public Works) Sagecrest, LLC respectfully requests approval of its application and associated entitlements. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please feel free to contact me at (714) 606-7208 or greg@sagecrestllc.com. Sincerely, Greg McCafferty 740 E La Palma, LLC -Page 1- JUSTIFICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Revised 4/2008 The Planning Commission shall submit a recommendation for approval to the City Council only if it makes all of the following findings: 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 Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU-4), 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. Please submit a letter addressing the following questions regarding your application to amend the General Plan. Complete, accurate and thoughtful answers are required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the requested amendment. A.Identify the General Plan elements proposed to be amended . Indicate if it is text or map amendment. The following is a list of General Plan elements. Land Use Circulation Green Growth Management Public Services and Facilities Safety Noise Economic Development Community Design Housing The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the City’s Land Use Element Map for the project site. B.Please describe the proposed amendment. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the project site from its current Low Density Residential designation to Mid-Density Residential in order to develop 39 single-family attached homes. This proposed General Plan density is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The site is surrounded by Medium Density to the southwest, Railroad and Low - Medium Density to the east and south, and Low Density to the west and north. Moreover, the amendment will facilitate the removal of a less compatible storage yard with new housing. C.Why is an amendment proposed? The amendment is proposed in order to facilitate the transition of less compatible outdoor storage yard with a new townhome community, and to add to the City’s accessibly priced for-sale housing stock in Downtown Anaheim to help meet the ever-increasing need for housing in the City. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 CITY OF ANAHEIM JUSTIFICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Page 2 of 2 D. Which existing General Plan Goals and/or Policies support the proposed amendment? The project supports the following policies of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Goal 1.1 (“Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods”): 1. Actively pursue development standards and design p olicies to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s many neighborhoods. 2. Ensure that new development is designed in a manner that preserves the quality of life in existing neighborhoods. The project also supports the following policies o f the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Goal 2.1 (“Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs”): 1. Facilitate new residential development on vacant or underutilized infill parcels. 6. Ensure quality development through appropriate development standards and by adherence to related Community Design Element policies and guidelines. In addition, the project supports the following policies of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4.1 (“Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses”): 2. Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines. 3. Ensure that developers consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the design and development process. E. How will the proposed amendment improve the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole? The proposed residential project complements the existing residential uses in the area and wi ll contribute to the production of new high-quality for-sale housing prescribed in the City’s Housing Element. Moreover, the property is currently developed with a outdoor storage yard. The project would replace this less compatible use with new quality housing for Anaheim residents. F. If the amendment includes a change to the Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU-4), please indicate how the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to access, topog raphy and provision of utilities. The project site is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed land use because the proposed site plan provides adequate circulation that meets the City’s access requirements for public and private access. Moreover, the proposed project significantly improves and beautifies a deficient alley, by dedicating and improving it to the city standard of 20 feet . Access to the project is also provided by North Street on the north and Wilhelmina on the south. The area is already urbanized with existing residential uses. As such, utility connections are availab le for the project. Necessary utilities already exist on-site and in the adjacent streets and are adequate to accommodate the project. As part of the project, the existing sewer line located in the alley will be replaced for the benefit of the project and surrounding area. G. If the amendment includes a change to the Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU -4), please indicate how the change will affect the property’s compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proposed change from Low Density Residential to Mid-Density Residential is consistent with surrounding designations to the east, south and north, including Medium Density and Low- Medium Density designations. -Page 1- JUSTIFICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Revised 4//2008 A Reclassification is a legislative rezoning action requiring the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council in a manner prescribed by law after a hearing before the Planning Commission. Whenever a property owner, alone or together with other property ow ners, desires to change the zone classification of a parcel or parcels of land from one zone classification to another, a Reclassification is required. The City of Anaheim has adopted a three-step process to change the zoning designation on property. The first and second steps are the Application Phase and Public Hearing Phase and result in a hearing before the Planning Commission . The Planning Commission approval is considered a Resolution of Intent. The resolution of intent alone does not reclassify the property. A Resolution approving the reclassification of property may require certain conditions be completed . Once the conditions of approval are completed, an Ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption. The adoption of an Ordinance requires two “readings” (introduction and adoption) by the City Council at least one week apart. An Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after the second (adoption) reading. 1.Identify the existing zone and the zone you are proposing to reclassify to. The existing zoning for the site is I (Industrial). The proposed reclassification to the RM-3.5 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone allows for the density proposed for this project. In addition, application of the RM -3.5 standards to the proposed project will ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the project will contribute to the production of new housing prescribed in the City’s Housing Element. 2.Indicate how the proposed zone is necessary or desirable for the develo pment of the community and in harmony with the objective of the City’s General Plan. The RM-3.5 zone allows for the density that is compatible with residential densities surrounding the project site to the east, north and south; and the RM-3.5 standards will ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the project will eliminate a less compatible outdoor storage yard and replace it with quality for - sale housing at competitive rates. The project will provide Anaheim residents with additional housing options and will bring greater homeownership to downtown Anaheim further stabilizing the area and contributing to the production of new housing prescribed in the City’s Housing Element. 3.Indicate how the proposed zone is compatible and complementary to existing permitted uses in the vicinity. The proposed change to the RM-3.5 zone is compatible and complementary to existing permitted uses in the vicinity. The proposed density and product type is compatible with the medium and low medium density projects to the east, north and ATTACHMENT NO. 11 CITY OF ANAHEIM JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE OR CODE WAIVER Page 2 of 2 south. The project also provides a transition and buffer from the neighborhood to the west to the Railroad tracks to the east. The project also proposes improvements that will benefit the greater area including widen ing the alley to meet the city requirement of 20 feet, and replacing an old sewer line. 4. Indicate how the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate development under the proposed zone and that adequate area is provided for all yards, setbacks, w alls, landscaping, and other site development requirements in order to harmonize the potential use with existing or permitted uses in the same vicinity. Adequate provision has been made for common open space, parking, and other development standards. The design is sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood and provides adequate area for setbacks, walls, landscaping, and other site development requirements in order to harmonize the project with our neighbors. The site design intentionally places the new homes along the east property line. This design not only reduces noise from the Metrolink trains, but also provides maximum privacy for residents across the alley. The courtyard design of the townhomes also focuses the development inward further enh ancing privacy. 5. Indicate how the site properly relates to streets and highways designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic which may be generated in the immediate vicinity under the proposed zone. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project which found that the project will not significantly impact key intersections or roadway segments when analyzing the existing plus project or 2021 cumulative plus project traffic conditions. Moreover, the public alley will be beautified and widened to 20 feet to meet City standards and will provide a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. ******** -Page 1- JUSTIFICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Revised 10/2009 The Planning Commission is required by law to make a "Finding of Fact" justifying the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Before a CUP can be approved, all of the following must be demonstrated: 1.That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of the Anaheim Municipal 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 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 the particular a rea or to 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 Anaheim. The granting of a conditional use permit is dependent upon demonstration that the proposed use meets the above listed criteria. The following ques tions are designed to assist you in satisfying that requirement. Provide a letter of justification addressing the following issues. A.Indicate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the ad joining land uses or the growth and development of the area. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. On the contrary, the proposed use will assist the City in meeting its Housing Element goals for quality and competitively priced for-sale housing. The proposed project is consistent with the mix of existing housing in the neighborhood with regard to density and housing type. Also, a CEQA-level environmental analysis is being conducted to ensure that any significant impacts generated by the project will be mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition, the project will benefit the citizens of Anaheim and the immediate area by providing quality housing in an area of the City that has not had any recent in -fill residential development. B.Explain how the site proposed for the use is large enough to accommodate anticipated growth of the development and allow the continued operation without causing a detriment to the particular area or to health and safety. The property is approximately 1.57 gross acres and complements the existing residential uses in the area. The project is being constructed per the standards of the RM-3.5 zone. In addition, the project has been designed consistent with the City’s private street standard , ATTACHMENT NO. 12 widens the alley to the city standard of 20 feet, replaces an existing sewer line for the benefit of the project and surrounding area and exceeds the city’s parking code. C. Indicate how the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upo n the roads designed and constructed to handle the traffic in the area. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project which found that the project will not significantly impact key intersections or roadway segments for existing plus project or 2021 cumulative plus project traffic conditions . Moreover, the public alley will be beautified and widened to 20 feet to meet City standards and will provide a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood . D. Indicate how approval of this Conditional Use Permit with any conditions of approval, will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim . The proposed residential project will benefit the citizens of Anaheim by providing quality for- sale housing that is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project has been designed to meet the standards of the RM-3.5 zone. Community benefits include widening and beautification of the existing public alley and replacement of an old sewer line. The project is also designed to reduce train no ise from the adjacent Metrolink line. As such, approval of this CUP will benefit, not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ******** A T T A C H M E N T N O . 1 3 C o n c e p t u a l L a n d s c a p e P l a n D o w n t o w n A n a h e i m 3 9 S a g e C r e s t P r o j e c t N o . : S C 0 1 D a t e : 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 3 r d C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l A P N : 0 3 5 - 2 0 5 - 0 1 L - 1 C o m m u n i t y o p e n s p a c e a r e a w i t h s h a d e s t r u c t u r e , B B Q c o u n t e r , c o r n h o l e c o u r t a n d s p e c i m e n t r e e f o r s h a d e w i t h s e a t i n g f o r s m a l l s o c i a l e v e n t s a n d g r o u p g a t h e r i n g s . T h r e e c o m m u n i t y c l u s t e r m a i l b o x e s , p e r U S P S r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l . P r o p o s e d w a l l , p i l a s t e r , g a t e o r f e n c e , p e r W a l l & F e n c e P l a n . E n h a n c e d p a v i n g , w i t h l i g h t b r o o m f i n i s h a n d s a w c u t j o i n t s . P r o p o s e d t r e e , p e r P l a n t i n g P l a n . 5 ' w i d e p e d e s t r i a n n a t u r a l c o l o r e d c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k , w i t h l i g h t b r o o m f i n i s h a n d t o o l e d j o i n t s 4 ' w i d e c o m m u n i t y n a t u r a l c o l o r e d c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k , w i t h l i g h t b r o o m f i n i s h a n d t o o l e d j o i n t s . 3 ' w i d e u n i t e n t r y n a t u r a l c o l o r e d c o n c r e t e w a l k , l i g h t b r o o m f i n i s h a n d t o o l e d j o i n t s . 9 . 5 . 8 . 7 . 6 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . L E G E N D 1 0 . 1 1 . 1 2 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . 1 6 . 1 8 . A c c e s s i b l e p a r k i n g s t a l l a n d s t r i p i n g , p e r C i v i l p l a n s . G u e s t p a r k i n g s t a l l . N a t u r a l c o l o r e d c o n c r e t e d r i v e w a y , w i t h l i g h t b r o o m f i n i s h a n d t o o l e d j o i n t s . 6 ' b e n c h a n d p i c n i c t a b l e s f o r p a s s i v e g a t h e r i n g s . C o m m o n a r e a l a n d s c a p e , b u i l d e r i n s t a l l e d a n d H O A m a i n t a i n e d . C o m m u n i t y d o g b a g s t a t i o n ( b l a c k i n c o l o r ) , f o r p e t o w n e r s . T r a n s f o r m e r t o b e s c r e e n e d w i t h l a n d s c a p e , q u a n t i t y a n d f i n a l l o c a t i o n s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d . C o u r t y a r d o p e n s p a c e , r e f e r t o L 2 - O p e n S p a c e E n l a r g e m e n t s . P r o p o s e d A C u n i t l o c a t i o n s , p e r A r c h i t e c t . E n h a n c e d v e h i c u l a r a n d p e d e s t r i a n p a v e r s . (Conceptual images only )112184 4 3 3 53 3 3 3 67 8 7 7 7 9 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 14 1 6 1 2 161 2 112 1 1 8 5 5 11 1 6 1 6 10 4 1 6 4 1 2 1 7 . 1 7 17 8 1 6 1 2 1 6 9Open space enlargementOpen spa c e e n l a r g e m e n t C o u r t Y a r d A O p e n s p a c e e n l a r g e m e n t C o u r t Y a r d B 1 2 1 8 1 5 6 0 ' S c a l e : 1 " = 3 0 ' 0 3 0 ' 1 5 ' 1 6 ' S c a l e : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 0 8 ' 4 ' O p e n S p a c e E n l a r g e m e n t D o w n t o w n A n a h e i m 3 9 S a g e C r e s t P r o j e c t N o . : S C 0 1 D a t e : 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 3 r d C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l A P N : 0 3 5 - 2 0 5 - 0 1 L - 2 O p e n S p a c e C o u r t y a r d A O p e n S p a c e C o u r t y a r d B Open Space 1. Cornhole game piece.2. Dog waste station.3. BBQ counter and grill.4. Wood shade structure.5. Lounge Furniture and gas firepit.6. Enhanced pedestrian pavers.7. Steel screen panels.8. Steel trash receptacle.LEGEND31287546 1 . A c c e s s i b l e p i c n i c t a b l e . 2 . A c c e n t p o t o n p e d e s t a l . 3 . B B Q g a s g r i l l . L E G E N D 1 . 6 ' s t e e l b e n c h . 2 . B e n c h s e a t a n d g a s f i r e p i t . 3 . M e t a l a r b o r . 4 . S t e e l s c r e e n p a n e l s . L E G E N D 1 3 2 2 4 1 3 1 4 3 2 1 2 3 5 6 8 2 43 1 NO R T H S T . WI L H E L M I N A S T . A.T. + S.F. RAILROAD BLOCK "D" - TRACT NO. 247 NOT A PART ////////// // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Limit of Work Li m i t o f W o r k L i m i t o f W o r k RAIL ROAD TRACKS EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G S EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 1 3 42 NO R T H S T R E E T WI L H E L M I N A S T R E E T T 5 6 7 WALL LEGEND 6'-0" High stucco over CMU wall, with flat stucco cap. 12'-0" High stucco over CMU Sound Wall, with flat stucco cap. 3'-0" High stucco over CMU wall, with flat stucco cap. 12'-6"-6'-6" High (18" sq.) stucco over CMU pilaster, with stucco cap. ADA Path of Travel Conceptual Wall & Fence Plan L-3 1 4 1 3 4 Downtown Anaheim 39 Sage Crest Project No.: SC01 Date: 12/10/2018 3rd Concept Submittal APN: 035-205-01 2 2 (Conceptual images only ) 24'-7" 57 ' - 0 " 12' sound wall 12' sound wall 3 60' Scale: 1" =30' 0 30'15' NORTH ST. WILHELMINA ST. A.T. + S.F. RAILROAD B L O C K " D " - T R A C T N O . 2 4 7 NOTAPART ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// L i m i t o f W o r k Limit of Work L i m i t o f W o r k R A I L R O A D T R A C K S EXISTING BUILDINGS E X I S T I N G R E S I D E N T I A L 1 3 4 2NORTH STREET WILHELMINA STREET T 5 6 7 Type/FormCupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress)PLANTING LEGENDSymbolVerticalStreetColumnarTrunkSingleSingleBotanical Name (Common Name)SuggestionsMelaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark Melaleuca)Buffer / Screen Multi Tristania conferta (Brisbane Box)Arbutus marina (Strawberry Tree)EvergreenMultiFloweringVerticalGeijera parvilflora (Australian Willow)Evergreen Single Size24" Box15gal24" Box 24" Box24" Box TREESCanopySingle 24" BoxDeciduousLowMedi u m Q t y . 7 4 Low 1 2 Lagerstroemia indica "Natchez" Low 6 Low 6 Med 2 7 Podocarpus macrophyllus (Yew Pine)Wucol s T o t a l 1 0 5 Single 15galMed 4 3 Columnar Rhus lancea (African Sumac)(Regio n 3 ) C o n c e p t u a l P l a n t i n g P l a n D o w n t o w n A n a h e i m 3 9 S a g e C r e s t P r o j e c t N o . : S C 0 1 D a t e : 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 3 r d C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l A P N : 0 3 5 - 2 0 5 - 0 1 L - 4 N O T E S : 1 . I r r i g a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g s p r a y a n d / o r d r i p ) w i l l b e p r o v i d e d , i n t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n D o c u m e n t p h a s e , a n d t o b e i n s t a l l e d p e r l o c a l C a l i f o r n i a w a t e r r e g u l a t i o n s ( A B 1 8 8 1 ) & C i t y o f A n a h e i m W a t e r E f f i c i e n c y L a n d s c a p e O r d i n a n c e . 2 . T r a n s f o r m e r s , b a c k - f l o w p r e v e n t e r s & o t h e r a b o v e - g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s t o b e s c r e e n e d w i t h l a n d s c a p e a s p e r m i t t e d p e r l o c a l c o d e s & r e g u l a t i o n s . 3 . T h e p l a n t p a l e t t e l i s t e d p r o v i d e s a l i s t o f p l a n t m a t e r i a l t o s e l e c t f r o m w h e n p r e p a r i n g f i n a l l a n d s c a p e c o n s t r u c t i o n d o c u m e n t s f o r t h i s p r o j e c t . H o w e v e r , s u b s t i t u t i o n s m a y b e r e q u i r e d d u e t o a v a i l a b i l i t y , s o i l s t e s t s , o r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s . 4 . A l l t r e e s w i t h i n 5 ' o f h a r d s c a p e t o b e i n s t a l l e d w i t h ( 2 4 " ) d e e p r o o t b a r r i e r s . V I N E S & E S P A L I E R S B o u g a i n v i l l e a ' M o n k a ' B o u g a i n v i l l e a P a n d o r e a j a s m i n o i d e s ' L a d y D i ' W h i t e B o w e r V i n e C l e m a t i s ' P a r i s i e n n e ' ™ B o u l e v a r d ® P a r i s i e n n e ™ C l e m a t i s ( O o - L a - L a ® B o u g a i n v i l l e a ) T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s S t a r J a s m i n e R o s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s ' T u s c a n B l u e ' S e n e c i o m a n d r a l i s c a e S t r e l i t z i a r e g i n a e R h a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a " I n d i a H a w t h o r n B i r d o f P a r a d i s e R o s e m a r y B l u e C h a l k F i n g e r s L i g u s t r u m j a p o n i c u m " T e x a n u m " S H R U B S a n d G R O U N D C O V E R J a p a n e s e P r i v e t A g a v e s p . A g a v e A l o e s p . A l o e B o u g a i n v i l l e a s p . B o u g a i n v i l l e a B u x u s m . j a p o n i c a ' G r e e n B e a u t y ' J a p a n e s e B o x w o o d C a r i s s a m . ' G r e e n C a r p e t ' D w a r f N a t a l P l u m L a v a n d u l a s t o e c h a s S p a n i s h L a v e n d e r R o s m a r i n u s p . ' H u n t i n g t o n C a r p e t ' G r o u n d c o v e r / P r o s t r a t e R o s e m a r y L a n t a n a c . ' S p r e a d i n g S u n s h i n e ' S p r e a d i n g S u n s h i n e L a n t a n a ' P i t t o s p o r u m ' C r e m e d e M i n t ' D w a r f M o c k O r a n g e C h a m a e r o p s h u m i l i s M e d i t e r r a n e a n F a n P a l m X y l o s m a c o n g e s t u m ' C o m p a c t ' C o m p a c t X y l o s m a A n i g o z a n t h o s K a n g a r o o P a w C a r e x d i v u l s a B e r k e l e y S e d g e N a s s e l l a p u l c h r a P u r p l e N e e d l e g r a s s M u h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s D e e r G r a s s D e l o s p e r m a c o o p e r i T r a i l i n g I c e P l a n t C a l l i s t e m o n c i t r i n u s ' L i t t l e J o h n ' D w a r f B o t t l e b r u s h P h o r m i u m ' J a c k S p r a t t ' J a c k S p r a t t N e w Z e a l a n d F l a x C o r d y l i n e ' P i n k P a s s i o n ' P i n k P a s s i o n D r a c a e n a P a l m T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s S t a r J a s m i n e S a l v i a s p . S a l v i a P a r k w a y T r e e P l a n t i n g C l e a r a n c e s ( P e r C i t y S t d . 5 3 0 - A D e t a i l ) A . F a c e o f c u r b t o C . L . o f t r e e - 3 ' m i n . B . S t r e e t l i g h t : - 1 0 ' m i n . f o r p a l m s . - 1 5 ' m i n . f o r a l l o t h e r s . C . D r i v e w a y f r o m t o p o r x o r B . C . R . - 1 0 ' m i n . D . U t i l i t i e s a n d s i g n s : - w a t e r m a i n 5 ' m i n . - f i r e h y d r a n t 5 ' m i n . - c a t c h b a s i n 5 ' m i n . - s e w e r l a t e r a l , W M & D D C 1 0 ' m i n . - r o a d w a y s i g n 1 0 ' m i n . 6 0 ' S c a l e : 1 " = 3 0 ' 0 3 0 ' 1 5 ' NO R T H S T . WI L H E L M I N A S T . A.T. + S.F. RAILROAD BLOCK "D" - TRACT NO. 247 NOT A PART ////////// // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Limit of Work Li m i t o f W o r k L i m i t o f W o r k RAIL ROAD TRACKS EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G S EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 1 3 42 NO R T H S T R E E T WI L H E L M I N A S T R E E T T 5 6 7 SYMBOL NOTES QTY COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 11,123 sf (Min. 10` Dimension) OPEN SPACE LEGEND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: TOTAL 39 UNITS RM 3.5 ZONE (275 SF/UNIT) = 10,725 SF Downtown Anaheim 39 Sage Crest Project No.: SC01 Date: 12/10/2018 3rd Concept Submittal APN: 035-205-01 Conceptual Open Space Plan L-5 23'-10" 51'-5"43'-5" 15'-0" 14 ' - 8 " 43'-4" 15'-0" 14 ' - 8 " 54'-0" 15'-0" 14 ' - 8 " 54'-0"54'-0" 15'-0" 6 8 ' - 0 " 15'-0"15'-0" 54'-0" 60' Scale: 1" =30' 0 30'15' NORTH ST. WILHELMINA ST. A.T. + S.F. RAILROADNOTAPART////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// L i m i t o f W o r k Limit of Work L i m i t o f W o r k R A I L R O A D T R A C K S EXISTING BUILDINGS E X I S T I N G R E S I D E N T I A L 1 3 4 2NORTH STREET WILHELMINA STREET T 5 6 7 TSYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONQTYDE T A I L M a t e r i a l F i n i s h E l e c t r i c a l L a m p W a t t s C o l o r T e m p L e n s O p t i c s / G l a r e M o u n t i n g O p t i o n s Area Pole Light, HID - Direct Lighting Sales, Model San Vicente #SVE-310 C a s t A l u m i n u m T e x t u r e d B r o n z e 1 2 0 V P e r E l e c . E n g . P e r E l e c . E n g . P e r E l e c . E n g . P e r E l e c . E n g . P e r E l e c . E n g . R A 2 1 R a d i u s O n D B C - 1 B a s e & 1 2 ` r o u n d p o l e . Tree uplight, staked - Kichler model #16006BE27.2 C a s t a l u m i n u m T e x t u r e d A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r o n z e 1 2 V L E D 6 . 5 2 7 0 0 K W a r m W h i t e P e r E l e c . E n g . R a d i a x O p t i c S t a k e d Low-voltage transformer - Kichler model #15PR300 SS1 C a s t A l u m i n u m T e x t u r e d A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r o n z e 7 5 W a l l I n s t a l l w i t h M e c h a n i c a l T r a n s f o r m e r T i m e r ( # 1 5 5 5 7 B K & P l u g - I n T r a n s f o r m e r R e m o t e P h o t o c e l l ( # 1 5 5 3 4 K ) . Exterior Electrical GFI Outlet1 C a s t A l u m i n u m T e x t u r e d A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r o n z e 1 2 0 V W a l l VLO 12V LED Flood Variable Lumen AZT2 B r o n z e d / B r a s s T e x t u r e d A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r o n z e 1 2 V L E D P e r M a n u f . 2 7 0 0 K W a r m W h i t e S u r f a c e H i d e C o n d u i t C o n n e c t i o n a l o n g B a c k o f P o s t . 16022AZT27 T LIGHTING SCHEDULE S Y M B O L T C o n c e p t u a l L i g h t i n g P l a n D o w n t o w n A n a h e i m 3 9 S a g e C r e s t P r o j e c t N o . : S C 0 1 D a t e : 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 3 r d C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l A P N : 0 3 5 - 2 0 5 - 0 1 L - 6 6 0 ' S c a l e : 1 " = 3 0 ' 0 3 0 ' 1 5 ' NORTH ST. P A U L I N E S T . WILHELMINA ST. A . T . + S . F . R A I L R O A D B L O C K " D " - T R A C T N O . 2 4 7 NOTAPART A L L E Y ////////////////////////////////////////// T FF=168.4GFF=167.9 F F = 1 6 8 . 5 G F F = 1 6 8 . 0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 F F = 1 6 9 . 6 G F F = 1 6 8 . 6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 UNIT1 U N I T 5 U N I T 7 A D A U N I T 6 U N I T 4 ADAUNIT3 UNIT2 BLDG 1 U N I T 8 A D A U N I T 9 U N I T 1 1 U N I T 1 3 A D A U N I T 1 2 U N I T 1 0 U N I T 1 4 U N I T 1 5 U N I T 1 7 U N I T 1 9 U N I T 1 8 U N I T 1 6 U N I T 2 0 U N I T 2 1 U N I T 2 3 U N I T 2 5 U N I T 2 4 U N I T 2 2 U N I T 2 6 U N I T 2 7 U N I T 2 9 U N I T 3 1 U N I T 3 0 U N I T 2 8 U N I T 3 2 U N I T 3 3 U N I T 3 5 U N I T 3 7 U N I T 3 6 U N I T 3 4 U N I T 3 8 U N I T 3 9 B L D G 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 B L D G 5 B L D G 6 B L D G 7 6"SD 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 6"SDSD S D S D S D S D S D 8"SS8"SS8"S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S P R O P O S E D S A N I T A R Y S E W E R P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N E X I S T I N G D O M E S T I C W A T E R E X I S T I N G S A N I T A R Y S E W E R P R O P O S E D F I R E W A T E R P R O P O S E D D O M E S T I C W A T E R L E G E N D P R O P O S E D 3 ' W A L L P E R S E P A R A T E P L A N E X I S T I N G E A S E M E N T F U T U R E R I G H T O F W A Y P R O P E R T Y L I N E F L O W L I N E P R O P O S E D 1 2 ' S O U N D W A L L P E R S E P A R A T E P L A N P R O P O S E D 6 ' W A L L P E R S E P A R A T E P L A N C E N T E R L I N E P R O P O S E D C A T C H B A S I N P R O P O S E D A R E A D R A I N P R O P O S E D S E W E R C L E A N O U T P R O P O S E D W A T E R M E T E R P R O P O S E D C O M B I N A T I O N M E T E R / B A C K F L O W C O N C R E T E A S P H A L T L A N D S C A P E P R O P O S E D D O U B L E C H E C K D E T E C T O R P E R V I O U S C O N C R E T E 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M N G E N E R A L I N F O R M A T I O N : 1 . N E T A C R E A G E : 1 . 4 8 A C 2 . E X I S T I N G Z O N I N G : I N D U S T R I A L 3 . P R O P O S E D Z O N I N G : R E S I D E N T I A L 4 . E X I S T I N G U S E : P A R K I N G / S T O R A G E 5 . C O N T O U R I N T E R V A L : 1 F O O T 6 . A L L D I M E N S I O N S A R E A P P R O X I M A T E 7 . A L L I M P R O V E M E N T S R E Q U I R E D B Y T H E C I T Y O F A N A H E I M S H A L L B E I N S T A L L E D T O T H E S A T I S F A C T I O N O F T H E C I T Y E N G I N E E R 8 . S A N I T A R Y S E W E R S Y S T E M S H A L L B E P R I V A T E 9 . O N - S I T E W A T E R S Y S T E M S H A L L B E P R I V A T E , U N L E S S N O T E D O N P L A N . O N E M A S T E R W A T E R M E T E R A N D S E P A R A T E S U B - M E T E R S T O B E P R O V I D E D F O R E A C H I N D I V I D U A L 1 0 . S O U R C E O F W A T E R S U P P L Y S H A L L B E C I T Y O F A N A H E I M W A T E R 1 1 . O N - S I T E S T R E E T S S H A L L B E P R I V A T E T H E B E A R I N G S S H O W N H E R E O N A R E B A S E D O N T H E B E A R I N G B E T W E E N O C S H O R I Z O N T A L C O N T R O L S T A T I O N G P S N O . 5 1 6 3 A N D S T A T I O N G P S N O . 3 2 7 8 B E I N G N 6 3 ° 4 9 ' 1 1 ” W P E R R E C O R D S O N F I L E W I T H T H E O F F I C E O F T H E C O U N T Y S U R V E Y O R . E P O C H A D J U S T M E N T : 2 0 0 7 . B A S I S O F B E A R I N G P R O P O S E D S U B D I V I S I O N 1 . 1 L O T T R A C T M A P 2 . 6 B U I L D I N G S ( 6 U N I T S E A C H ) + 1 B U I L D I N G ( 3 U N I T S ) = 7 B U I L D I N G S ( 3 9 U N I T S ) T O T A L 3 . T O T A L A R E A : 1 . 5 7 4 A C 4 . R / W D E D I C A T I O N : 0 . 0 9 1 A C 5 . N E T A R E A : 1 . 4 8 3 A C 1 T I T L E S H E E T 2 T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P 3 S E C T I O N S 4 C O N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G P L A N 5 C O N C E P T U A L S T O R M D R A I N P L A N 6 C O N C E P T U A L S E W E R P L A N 7 C O N C E P T U A L W A T E R P L A N S H E E T I N D E X B R A S S C A P M A R K E D C O F A B M , A T T H E I N T E R S E C T I O N O F P H I L A D E L P H I A S T R E E T & W I L H E L M I N A S T R E E T , I N T H E T O P O F C U R B A T T H E S E B C R . B M # 4 C - 1 1 E L E V = 1 6 2 . 3 2 ( N A V D 8 8 ) B E N C H M A R K V I C I N I T Y M A P A C A S P H A L T C O N C R E T E C C C O N C R E T E C L C E N T E R L I N E D I P D U C T I L E I R O N P I P E E G E D G E O F G U T T E R F F F I N I S H F L O O R F L F L O W L I N E F S F I N I S H S U R F A C E G F F G A R A G E F I N I S H F L O O R I N V I N V E R T M A X M A X I M U M M I N M I N I M U M P L P R O P E R T Y L I N E R L R I D G E L I N E R / W R I G H T O F W A Y S S L O P E S D S T O R M D R A I N S S S A N I T A R Y S E W E R T C T O P O F C U R B T G T O P O F G R A T E T S T O P O F S T E P T W T O P O F W A L L T Y P T Y P I C A L A B B R E V I A T I O N : F O R C O N D O M I N I U M P U R P O S E S D O W N T O W N A N A H E I M 3 9 - A P N - 0 3 5 - 2 0 5 - 0 1 , CITY O F A N A H E I M , C O U N T Y O F O R A N G E , S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A T E N T A T I V E T R A C T N O . 1 8 1 8 2 S I T E P L A N S C A L E : 1 ' = 5 0 " N LEGAL DESCRIPTION:THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN THECOUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 2 OF THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA-0000610, IN THE CITY OFANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 2006AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2006000695980 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLYDESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND LYING OVER A PORTION OF VINEYARD LOTS A-2, AS SHOWNON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS,RECORDS OF LOSANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PORTIONS LOTS 1-8 OF A MAP OF TRACT 201 (“ELKPARK EXTENSION) FILED IN BOOK 12, PAGE 34 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. PORTIONSOF SAID LAND ALSO SHOWN AS “NOT A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION” ON A MAP OFTRACT NO. 247 FILED IN BOOK 13, PAGE 51 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OFSAID ORANGE COUNTY. TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF WILHELMINA STREET WHICHWAS ABANDONED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PER RESOLUTION NO. 2006-001RECORDED APRIL 17, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20060002555768 OF OFFICIALRECORDS, COUNT OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, AND CONVEYED BY A QUITCLAIM DEEDRECORDED APRIL 18, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2006000259586 OF OFFICIAL RECORDSOF SAID COUNTY.AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID VINEYARD LOT A-2;THENCE NORTH 15° 43’ 35” WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY ALINE OF SAIDLOT, 793.33 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT;THENCE SOUTH 74° 14’ 45” WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 85.25 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 15° 43’ 35” EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 85.25 FEET FROMTHE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 582.92 FEET TO A POINT;THENCE SOUTH 15° 20’ 35” EAST 96.29 FEET TO A POINT;THENCE SOUTH 13° 30’ 35” WEST 114.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAIDLOT;THENCE SOUTH 74° 214’ 15” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 3.86 FEET TO A POINT ONA NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUSOF 1,779.57 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 78° 12’ 01” EAST;THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLEOF 00° 17’ 58” AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.30 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THROUGHSAID POINT BEARS NORTH 78° 29’ 59” EAST;THENCE NORTH 74° 14’ 15” EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 9.27 FEET FORMTHE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A-2, 94.83 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLYPROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A-2;THENCE NORTH 15° 43’ 35” WEST, ALONG SAID PROLONGATION, 9.27 FEET TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-QUARTER INTEREST IN A WELL ANDPUMPING PLANT AND A TRACT 75 X 100 FEET ON WHICH THE SAME IS LOCATED,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID VINEYARD LOT “A2”, RUNNINGTHENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 100 FEET;THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 75FEET TO A POINT;THENCE SOUTHERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 100 FEET TOTHE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT;THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 75 FEET TO THE POINT OFBEGINNING.EXCEPT ALL MINERALS AND ALL MINERAL RIGHTS OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTERNOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED IN AND UNDERLYING THEPROPERTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, OILAND GAS AND RIGHTS THERETO, TOGETHER WITH THE SOLE, EXCLUSIVE ANDPERPETUAL RIGHT TO EXPLORE FOR, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF, SAID MINERALS BUTWITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OF SAID LANDS, AND IN SUCHMANNER AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE SURFACE OF SAID LANDS OR TO INTERFERE WITHTHE USE THEREOF, AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED RECORDED APRIL 23, 1990 ASINSTRUMENT NO. 90-211397 OF OFFICIALRECORDS.APN:035-205-01 P R O J E C T S I T E EASEMENT NOTES5' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM . EXISTING 15' WIDE ALLEY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC US E P E R T R A C T N O . 2 4 7 , M A P O F THE MONTE VISTA TRACT, BEING A RESUBDIVISION O F E L K P A R K E X T E N S I O N E X C E P T THE EASTERLY PORTION OF BLOCK "C" AS SHOWN O N A M A P R E C O R D E D I N B O O K 1 2 , PAGE 34, MISC MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUN T Y , C A L I F O R N I A . EXISTING 3' EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES, AS D E D I C A T E D F O R P U B L I C U S E O N TRACT NO. 201 "ELK PARK EXTENSION" BOOK 12 PA G E 3 4 O F M I S C E L L A N E O U S M A P S . BY RESOLUTION NO. 157 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C I T Y O F A N A H E I M . ( E A S E M E N T DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY).DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR DOMESTIC W A T E R P U R P O S E S . DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR IRRIGATION W A T E R P U R P O S E S . 1.ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD SERVICES WITHIN THE PROJE C T SITE SHALL BE UNDERGROUNDED PER SEPARATE PLAN NOTE: A T T A C H M E N T N O . 1 4 ////////////////////////////////////////// T NORTH ST.PAULI N E S T . WILHELMINA ST. A.T. + S.F. RAILROAD B L O C K " D " - T R A C T N O . 2 4 7 NOTAPART FF=168.4GFF=167.9 FF=168.5GFF=168.0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 F F = 1 6 9 . 6 G F F = 1 6 8 . 6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 UNIT1UNIT5UNIT7ADAUNIT6UNIT4ADAUNIT3UNIT2 BLDG 1UNIT8ADAUNIT9 U N I T 1 1 U N I T 1 3 A D A U N I T 1 2 U N I T 1 0 U N I T 1 4 U N I T 1 5 U N I T 1 7 U N I T 1 9 U N I T 1 8 U N I T 1 6 U N I T 2 0 U N I T 2 1 U N I T 2 3 U N I T 2 5 U N I T 2 4 U N I T 2 2 U N I T 2 6 U N I T 2 7 U N I T 2 9 U N I T 3 1 U N I T 3 0 U N I T 2 8 U N I T 3 2 U N I T 3 3 U N I T 3 5 U N I T 3 7 U N I T 3 6 U N I T 3 4 U N I T 3 8 U N I T 3 9 BLDG 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 B L D G 5 B L D G 6 B L D G 7 1 1 2 2 N2255427.2231E6057836.3646 A L L E Y R / W R / W R/W R/W F U T U R E R / W 3 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 24.6' 4 6 . 0 ' 24.0'PRIVATE 24.0 ' PRIV A T E 2 4 . 0 ' P R I V A T E 2 4 . 0 ' P R I V A T E 2 4 . 0 ' P R I V A T E 2 4 . 0 ' P R I V A T E 2 4 . 0 ' P R I V A T E 2 . 2 ' 13.0'16.0'7.0'Typ.4.0'Typ.4.0'Typ.5.0'4.0'Typ. 8 . 5 ' 1 8 . 0 ' 3.0'Typ.18.0'N14°3 0 ' 4 8 " W 799 . 6 0 ' S75°27'32"W85.25'S14°31'08"E579.92' S 1 2 ° 1 7 ' 4 8 " E 1 1 4 . 2 1 ' S 7 5 ° 2 7 ' 0 2 " W 3 . 8 6 ' L = 9 . 3 0 1 , R = 1 7 7 9 . 5 7 0 D = 0 . 2 9 9 4 N75°27'02"E94.83' S 1 4 ° 0 7 ' 4 8 " E 9 6 . 2 9 ' S 1 2 ° 1 8 ' 0 9 " E 4 8 . 4 3 ' S 1 2 ° 1 6 ' 4 4 " E 4 8 . 4 4 ' S 1 4 ° 0 2 ' 3 0 " E 4 8 . 4 0 ' S 1 4 ° 0 5 ' 2 1 " E 4 8 . 4 0 ' S 1 4 ° 2 8 ' 4 7 " E 4 8 . 4 0 ' S 1 4 ° 3 1 ' 3 8 " E 4 8 . 4 0 ' N 1 4 ° 3 0 ' 5 5 " W 4 8 . 4 0 ' S 1 4 ° 3 1 ' 3 8 " E 4 8 . 4 0 ' N 1 4 ° 2 8 ' 4 7 " W 4 8 . 4 0 ' N 1 4 ° 2 8 ' 4 7 " W 4 8 . 4 0 ' N 1 4 ° 2 8 ' 4 7 " W 4 8 . 4 0 ' N 1 4 ° 3 5 ' 1 1 " W 4 8 . 4 0 ' S14°31'38"E48.40'N14°31'38"W48.40'S14°28'47"E48.40'S14°28'47"E48.36'N75°31'13"E2.53'S75°31'13"W2.00' N 7 5 ° 2 8 ' 2 2 " E 2 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 ° 3 1 ' 1 3 " E 2 . 4 9 ' L = 2 6 . 2 3 9 , R = 3 8 . 0 0 0 D = 3 9 . 5 6 2 2 17.0'17.5'S75° 31' 12.88"W2.460'15.0' 1 7 . 5 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 32.5'15.9'11.3' 2 0 . 1 ' 7 . 8 ' 5 . 2 ' R 2 . 0 ' T y p . 1 0 . 0 ' 1 1 . 9 ' 6 . 4 ' 2 1 . 0 ' N14°30'48"W3.00'S75°27'32"W85.25'S14°31'08"E3.00'3 R / W F 20.0'5.0'A E D C 3 3 3 3 3 SEE DETAIL AHEREONB3165.0'5.0' 5 . 0 ' 1 9 . 3 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 4 8 . 5 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 2 . 8 ' 5 5 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' D O M E S T I C W A T E R C O M B I N A T I O N M E T E R & B A C K F L O W I R R I G A T I O N W A T E R M E T E R F U T U R E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 0 6 0 3 0 3 0 S C A L E : 1 " = 3 0 ' 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y EASEMENT NOTES5' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM.EXISTING 15' WIDE ALLEY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE PER TRACT NO. 247, MAP OF THE MONTE VISTA TRACT,BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF ELK PARK EXTENSION EXCEPT THE EASTERLY PORTION OF BLOCK "C" AS SHOWNON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 12, PAGE 34, MISC MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.EXISTING 3' EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES, AS DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE ON TRACT NO. 201 "ELK PARKEXTENSION" BOOK 12 PAGE 34 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. BY RESOLUTION NO. 157 BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCITY OF ANAHEIM. (EASEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY).DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR DOMESTIC WATER PURPOSES.DEDICATION TO CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR IRRIGATION WATER PURPOSES.12345 T E N T A T I V E T R A C T N O . 1 8 1 8 2 P R O P O S E D L O T 1 F O R C O N D O M I N I U M P U R P O S E S D E T A I L A 1.3'R/W F U T U R E R / W R / W 55.9' 1 8 . 5 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 7 . 5 ' 1' GUTTER6" CURB 1 % M I N . T R E N C H D R A I N 0.50%MIN. E X . A L L E Y R E S I D E N T I A L A.T. + S.F.RAILROAD 4 . 0 ' E X . D R I V E W A Y O P E N I N G I N E X . C M U W A L L . E X C M U W A L L T O B E R E M O V E D EXISTING AC PAVEMENTSURFACE P R O P O S E D 8 " S E W E R I N V = 1 5 9 . 8 9 6.0'6' CMUWALLPRO P O S E D 8 " S T O R M D R A I N I N V = 1 6 4 . 0 0 PROPOSE D 8 " F I R E W A T E R PROPOSED 4" D O M E S T I C W A T E R R E M O V E E X . A C A N D G U T T E R I N A L L E Y A N D R E P L A C E W I T H 6 " P C C P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M S T D . D E T A I L N O . 1 3 1 2 % M I N . 2 % M I N . 0 . 5 ' P A R K W A Y D E C O R A T I V E P A V E R S R / W F L 5 . 0 ' X 3.0'R/W F U T U R E R / W R / W 53.7' 2 . 5 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 5 ' 1' GUTTER 2 % M I N . 1 % M I N . 4 . 0 ' E X . A L L E Y R E M O V E E X . A C A N D G U T T E R I N A L L E Y A N D R E P L A C E W I T H 6 " P C C P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M S T D . D E T A I L N O . 1 3 1 REAR BUILDING FACE R E S I D E N T I A L A.T. + S.F.RAILROADEXISTING ACPAVEMENT SURFACE 1 7 . 0 ' P A R K I N G S P A C E S FF = 168.7GFF = 168.2 2" E X . C M U W A L L / F E N C E T O B E R E M O V E D SILL PLA T E SILL PLATE F R O N T B U I L D I N G F A C E BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FOOTINGPER STRUCTURAL PLANSPROPOSED 4" D O M E S T I C W A T E R PROPOSE D 8 " F I R E W A T E R P R O P O S E D 8 " S T O R M D R A I N I N V = 1 6 4 . 1 2 P R O P O S E D 8 " S E W E R I N V = 1 5 9 . 7 2 2 % M I N . P A R K W A Y R / W F L 5 . 0 ' G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 6 1 4 % M A X . 1 % M I N . 1 % M I N . 3 ' 1 4 % M A X . 2 4 . 0 ' 3 ' 3 ' D R I V E A I S L E V - G U T T E R D R I V E W A Y A P R O N D R I V E W A Y A P R O N F L P R O P O S E D 6 " S E W E R I N V = 1 6 1 . 2 2 P R O P O S E D 2 " D O M E S T I C W A T E R 1 2 . 0 ' 1 ' M I N E X I S T I N G A C P A V E M E N T S U R F A C E G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 F L R / W 2 4 . 0 ' 1 8 . 0 ' D R I V E A I S L E P A R K I N G 3 . 3 ' D R I V E W A Y A P R O N 4 " C U R B 3 ' V - G U T T E R 0 " C U R B 1 % M I N . 1 % M I N . D R I V E W A Y A P R O N R E M O V E E X I S T I N G W A L L A S N E C E S S A R Y , C O O R D I N A T E W I T H A D J A C E N T P R O P E R T Y O W N E R . P R O P O S E D 6 " S E W E R I N V = 1 6 4 . 5 7 P R O P O S E D 2 " D O M E S T I C W A T E R 5 . 0 ' 1 ' M I N C M P S Y S T E M T O P = 1 6 2 . 5 4 C M P S Y S T E M B O T . = 1 5 6 . 5 4 E X I S T I N G A C P A V E M E N T S U R F A C E 1 0 . 0 ' 4 . 2 ' 6 . 0 ' 6 ' C M U W A L L C M P S Y S T E M I N L E T 8 " S D I N V = 1 6 1 . 8 6 1 4 % M A X . R/W12' SOUND WALLDECORATIVEPAVERSCONCRETESIDEWALK6" DIA. AREADRAIN EXISTING ACPAVEMENT SURFACENORTHBUILDINGFACEFF=168.4 19.5'OPEN AREA 5.0'8.0'LANDSCAPE 12.0'FS=167.73PROPOSEDSTORM DRAININV = 165.46 PROPOSEDSTORM DRAININV = 167.48 F U T U R E R / W R / W 5 . 0 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 2 % M I N . E X . A L L E Y R E S I D E N T I A L 2 % M I N . SILL PLATE 3 . 0 ' 4 . 0 ' 9 . 2 ' 5. 8 ' L A N D S C A P E P A R K W A Y UTIL I T Y CLO S E T PA D F R O N T B U I L D I N G F A C E FF = 168.4GFF = 167.9 R E M O V E E X . A C A N D G U T T E R I N A L L E Y A N D R E P L A C E W I T H 6 " P C C P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M S T D . D E T A I L N O . 1 3 1 X E X . C M U W A L L / F E N C E T O B E R E M O V E D P R O P O S E D 8 " S E W E R I N V = 1 5 8 . 8 7 PROPOS E D 8 " S T O R M D R A I N I N V = 1 6 4 . 6 9 PROPOSED 4" DOMESTIC WAT E R PROPOSED 8" FIRE WAT E R I N F I L T R A T I O N T R E N C H 2 . 5 ' 0 . 5 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 " T H I C K P R E C A S T P O R O U S C O N C R E T E P A V I N G - S O I L E N G I N E E R T O V E R I F Y 8 . 0 ' R / W 3 0 M I L I M P E R M E A B L E M E M B R A N E 2 . 5 ' T H I C K L A Y E R A A S H T O N O . 5 7 A G G R E G A T E - S O I L E N G I N E E R T O V E R I F Y 2 " T H I C K 3 8 " C R U S H E D S T O N E L E V E L I N G C O U R S E - S O I L E N G I N E E R T O V E R I F Y G E O T E X T I L E F A B R I C T Y P E I I ( B O T H S I D E S ) EXISTING ACPAVEMENT SURFACE 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y SECTION D SECTION C S E C T I O N F SECTION A S E C T I O N E 1 " = 2 ' 1 " = 1 0 ' P R O F I L E S C A L E V E R T . H O R I Z . S E C T I O N B //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////NORTH ST. A . T . + S . F . R A I L R O A D NOTAPARTNORTH ST.FF=168.4GFF=167.9 F F = 1 6 8 . 5 G F F = 1 6 8 . 0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 BLDG 1BL D G 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 1 6 7 . 8 8 F S 1 6 7 . 8 2 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 6 9 F S 1 6 7 . 6 2 T C = F S 167.55 FS167.41 FS 1 6 8 . 1 7 F S 1 6 8 . 3 3 T C 1 6 7 . 8 6 T G 1 6 7 . 9 8 F S 1 6 8 . 1 4 T C 1 6 7 . 7 2 F S 1 6 7 . 8 8 T C 1 6 7 . 9 8 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 6 6 F S 1 6 7 . 8 2 T C 1 6 7 . 8 3 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 1 4 F S 1 6 8 . 6 4 T C 1 6 8 . 1 4 F S 1 6 8 . 6 4 T C 1 6 7 . 9 5 F S 1 6 8 . 4 5 T C 1 6 7 . 9 5 F S 1 6 8 . 4 5 T C 167.81 FS168.31 TC167.81 FS168.31 TC 1 6 7 . 8 7 F L 1 6 7 . 6 7 F L 167.58 FL 1 6 7 . 8 8 F S 1 6 7 . 8 2 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 6 9 F S 1 6 7 . 6 2 T C = F S 167.55 FS167.48 FS 1 6 7 . 0 5 F L 1 6 7 . 3 9 T C = F S 1 6 6 . 9 4 F L 1 6 7 . 4 9 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 3 8 T C = F S 1 6 6 . 9 1 F L 1 6 7 . 4 8 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 2 3 T C = F S 1 6 6 . 8 1 F L 1 6 7 . 1 9 T C = F S 1 6 6 . 7 8 F L 167.16 FS167.66 TC166.67 FL 167.14 TG167.12 FS167.62 TC166.64 FL 167.13 FS167.63 TC 1 6 7 . 5 3 F S 1 6 7 . 6 9 T C 1 6 7 . 7 8 T C = F S 167.83TC=FS167.52TC=FS 167.54TC=FS167.11 FS167.61 TC167.07 FS167.57 TC 167.10 TG 1 6 7 . 2 9 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 4 8 T G 167.83 GB 168.38 FS(166.30) FL 166.77 FS 166.91TC=FS 1.7%1.7% 2 . 2 % 2 . 2 % 2 . 1 % 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 1 6 7 . 6 0 F L = C C 1 6 7 . 4 0 F L = C C 167.30FL=CC166.95 FL166.97 INV167.45 TC 166.96 FS167.46 TC166.87 FS 167.60TC=FS 1 6 7 . 3 1 F S 1 6 7 . 8 1 T C 1 6 7 . 1 7 F S 1 6 7 . 6 7 T C 1 6 7 . 4 6 F S 1 6 7 . 9 6 T C 1 6 7 . 7 3 F S 1 6 7 . 8 9 T C 1 6 7 . 2 6 F S 1 6 7 . 7 6 T C 166.96 FS167.46 TC 2 . 1 % 1.8%167.37 FS167.53 TC 167.50 TG167.40 T G 1 6 7 . 7 8 T G 0 . 3 0 % 0.30% 0 . 3 0 % 0 . 3 0 % 1 6 8 . 7 4 F S 1 6 8 . 3 5 T G 1 6 8 . 1 9 T G 1 6 8 . 5 8 T G 1 6 8 . 5 8 T G 1 6 8 . 3 5 T G 1 6 8 . 1 9 T G 1 6 7 . 8 5 F S 2 . 1 % 2. 2 % 1 6 7 . 8 5 F S 1 6 7 . 4 7 T G 1 6 8 . 6 6 F S 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 7 . 6 6 F S 2 . 2 % 2 . 4 % 1 6 7 . 6 6 F S 1 6 7 . 3 3 T C = F S 168.46 F S 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 167.63 T G 167.63 T G 167.63 T G 167.44TC=FS167.36TC=FS 167.48 TG167.48 TG167.48 TG 1 6 8 . 0 9 F S 1 6 7 . 9 2 F S 1 . 5 % 1 . 5 % 2.0% 1 6 8 . 3 3 F S 1 6 8 . 1 3 F S 1 6 7 . 7 3 T G 1 6 7 . 8 3 F G 1 6 7 . 2 8 T G 1 6 7 . 3 2 T G 1 6 7 . 1 8 F S 1 6 7 . 6 8 T C 1 6 7 . 4 0 F S 1 6 7 . 7 3 T C 1 6 7 . 4 7 F S 1 6 7 . 8 0 T C 1 6 7 . 2 4 F S 1 6 7 . 7 4 T C 1 6 7 . 6 4 T G 1 6 7 . 7 2 T G 1 6 8 . 0 3 F G 1 6 7 . 5 7 F S 1 6 7 . 9 0 T C 1 6 7 . 5 8 F S 1 6 7 . 9 1 T C 1 6 7 . 3 5 F S 1 6 7 . 8 5 T C 1 6 7 . 4 0 F S 1 6 7 . 9 0 T C 2 . 5 % 2 . 5 % S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S 1 6 8 . 6 7 G B 1 6 8 . 7 3 F G 1 6 8 . 2 7 F S 1 6 8 . 1 0 F S 1 6 7 . 9 4 T G 1 6 7 . 9 4 T G 1.2% 1 6 7 . 4 8 F S 1 6 7 . 9 8 T C 1 6 7 . 4 1 F S 1 6 7 . 9 1 T C 167.36 F S 167.69 T C 167.13 F S 167.63 T C 167.37 FS167.87 TC167.16 FS167.66 TC167.01 FS167.51 TC 167.36 TG 168.30 FS168.26 GB166.56 FS 167.43 INV170.44 TG 1 7 1 . 4 6 F L - H P 1 7 1 . 9 6 E G 167.82 TG12 1 0 1 1 T Y P . 3TYP. 4 T Y P . 4 T Y P . 4 T Y P . 2 2 T Y P . 9 2 T Y P . 14TYP.8 9166.91 FS167.41 TC 9P P P P(166.95)EG=AC (167.22)EG=AC ( 1 6 7 . 2 7 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 3 3 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 3 6 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 3 5 ) E G = A C 13166.57 FS(166.47) TCDWY LIP 9 1 6 7 . 8 7 T C = F S 9 9 9 166.81TC=FS 2.0% 168.40 F S 168.40 G B 1 6 8 . 4 5 F S 1 6 8 . 4 5 G B 1 6 8 . 6 0 F S 1 6 8 . 6 0 G B 1 6 8 . 6 5 F S 1 6 8 . 6 5 G B ADA UNIT2.6%1.9%1TYP. 3 T Y P . 8 T Y P . 1 6 7 . 9 3 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 9 3 T C = F S 9 T Y P . 2.5%ADA UNIT A D A U N I T 2 . 5 % A D A U N I T 2 . 5 % 2.5%2.5% 4.1% 3.6% 4.4% 4.5% 2.8%SOUND WALL PERARCHITECTURAL PLAN WALL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (TYP.) 0 . 1 2 % 0.12%(166.80) FL2% MAX4 1 6 7 . 1 0 R I M 1 6 1 5 165.00' 5.00' 1 . 5 % 1 . 5 % 8 8 T FF=169.4GFF=168.4FF=169.6GFF=168.6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 BLDG 5BLD G 6 B L D G 7 1 6 8 . 4 7 F L 1 6 8 . 7 4 F S 1 6 9 . 2 4 T C 1 6 8 . 8 4 F S 1 6 9 . 3 4 T C 1 6 9 . 3 0 F S 1 6 9 . 6 3 T C 1 6 8 . 5 5 F S 1 6 8 . 7 1 T C 1 6 8 . 7 8 F S 1 6 9 . 1 1 T C 1 6 8 . 0 1 F S 1 6 8 . 5 1 T C 1 6 8 . 5 4 C C = A C 1 6 7 . 8 8 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 2 8 F S 1 6 8 . 2 2 F S 168.28 FS168.22 FS 168.10 FS168.01TC=FS 1 6 8 . 0 9 F S 1 6 8 . 2 5 T C 1 6 8 . 3 2 F S 1 6 8 . 4 8 T C 168.04 FS168.20 TC 168.32 FS168.48 TC168.03 FS168.19 TC 168.32 FS168.48 TC167.89 FS168.05 TC 168.17 FS168.33 TC167.87 FS168.03 TC 168.17 FS168.33 TC 1 6 8 . 2 5 F L 1 6 8 . 5 4 F S 1 6 9 . 0 4 T C 1 6 8 . 5 4 F S 1 6 9 . 0 4 T C 168.54 FS169.04 TC168.54 FS169.04 TC168.36 FS168.86 TC168.36 FS168.86 TC 168.27 FL168.09 FL 1 6 8 . 2 8 F S 1 6 8 . 6 1 T C 1 6 8 . 2 2 F S 1 6 8 . 5 5 T C 168.28 FS168.22 FS 168.10 FS168.01TC=FS 1 6 7 . 7 9 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 7 6 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 3 2 F L 1 6 7 . 3 5 F L 1 6 7 . 8 7 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 8 8 T C = F S 167.67TC=FS167.21 FL 167.65TC=FS167.18 FL 167.75TC=FS167.52TC=FS167.08 FL 167.49TC=FS167.05 FL 1 6 7 . 8 9 T G 1 6 7 . 9 1 T G 1 6 7 . 4 5 F L 1 6 7 . 4 8 F L 2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1% 2 . 2 % 2 . 2 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 7 % 0.50% 0.50%0.50% 0.50% 1 6 8 . 2 0 F L = C C 168.00FL=CC167.75FL=CC 1 6 8 . 0 6 I N V 1 7 0 . 0 5 T G 1 6 7 . 5 8 F L 1 6 7 . 6 0 I N V 1 6 8 . 0 8 T C S=0.50 1 6 8 . 6 1 F S 1 6 9 . 1 4 F S EX. PROPERTY LINE FUTUREPROPERTYLINE 1 6 7 . 7 3 F S 1 6 8 . 2 3 T C 167.77TC=FS167.59 FS168.09 TC167.55 FS168.05 TC167.46 FS167.96 TC 1 6 8 . 6 0 F S 1 6 8 . 9 3 T C 1 6 8 . 0 9 F S 1 6 8 . 5 9 T C 1 6 7 . 9 8 F L = C C 168.16 TG 1 6 8 . 2 5 T G 1 6 8 . 4 6 T G 1 6 8 . 0 8 T G 0.30%0.30% 0 . 3 0 % 0 . 3 0 % 1 6 7 . 8 0 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 0 1 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 5 0 F S 1 6 8 . 6 6 T C 1 6 8 . 7 8 T G 1 6 8 . 6 5 T G 1 6 8 . 9 0 T G 1 6 8 . 9 0 T G 1 6 8 . 7 8 T G 1 6 8 . 6 5 T G 1 6 8 . 4 6 T G 1 6 8 . 1 6 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 9 5 F S 1 6 8 . 2 8 T C 1 6 7 . 8 6 T G 2.6%2.5%169.04 FS 1 6 8 . 6 3 T G 1 6 8 . 4 5 T G 1 6 8 . 7 9 T G 168.79 TG168.63 TG168.45 TG168.16TC=FS168.16TC=FS168.19 TG167.74 TG 168.94 FS168.54 TG168.37 TG 168.69 TG168.69 TG168.54 TG168.37 TG168.02 TG167.62TC=FS 2.5%2.6%168.05 FS 168.05 FS167.61 TG167.58 TG167.59TC=FS 168.35 TG168.19 TG 168.58 TG 1 6 7 . 7 5 F S 1 6 8 . 2 5 T C 167.76 TG 2.5%2.0%2.0%STEPSSTEPSSTEPS168.73 FG168.27 FS167.94 TG 167.70 FS168.03 TC167.48 FS167.98 TC 167.72 FS168.05 TC167.53 FS168.03 TC168.27 FS STEPSSTEPSSTEPSSTEPSSTEPSSTEPS168.93 FG1.3%168.87 GB168.44 FS STEPS S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S STEPSSTEPS 1 6 9 . 0 3 F G 168.97 GB167.86 FS168.19 TC167.87 FS168.20 TC167.63 FS168.13 TC167.67 FS168.17 TC167.67 FS168.17 TC 168.33 FS 168.25 TG 1 6 7 . 9 3 F S 1 6 8 . 2 6 T C 1 6 8 . 5 4 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 8 0 F S 1 6 8 . 3 0 T C 1 6 8 . 4 6 T C = F S 1 6 7 . 9 0 F S 1 6 8 . 2 3 T C S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S S T E P S 1 6 9 . 1 3 F G 1 6 9 . 0 7 G B 1 6 8 . 5 2 F S 2 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 2.0% 1 6 8 . 7 4 F S 1 6 7 . 9 9 F S 1 6 8 . 4 9 T C 1 6 7 . 9 5 F S 1 6 8 . 4 5 T C 1 6 8 . 5 6 F S 1 6 8 . 5 6 T C = F S 1.4% 1.0% 1 6 7 . 7 5 F S 1 6 8 . 2 5 T C 1 6 8 . 2 8 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 1 2 F S 1 7 0 . 0 5 F L 1 7 0 . 5 5 E G 1011TYP.1TYP.14TYP. 1 4 T Y P . 8 T Y P . 5 T Y P . 9 T Y P . 9 T Y P . 6 T Y P . 5 T Y P . 7 T Y P . 2 . 1 % PPP P (167.43)EG=AC(167.46)EG=AC (167.70)EG=AC (167.58)EG=AC ( 1 6 7 . 7 4 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 7 4 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 8 2 ) E G = A C ( 1 6 7 . 6 8 ) E G = A C 7 9 1 3 1 7 ' X 4 5 ' U N D E R G R O U N D I N F I L T R A T I O N C H A M B E R S A C C E S S M A N H O L E 9 8 5 M A T C H E X . M A T C H E X . 3TYP. 4 T Y P . 4 T Y P . 4 T Y P . 1 6 8 . 5 2 T C = F S 1 6 8 . 5 2 T C = F S 9 T Y P . 1 6 8 . 7 3 T C = F S 9 8 3.8%3.7% 3.9% 2.0% 4.4%4.6% W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T U R A L P L A N ( T Y P . ) W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T U R A L P L A N ( T Y P . ) W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T U R A L P L A N ( T Y P . ) 0.12% 0 . 1 2 % 0 . 1 2 % ( 1 6 6 . 9 5 ) F L ( 1 6 7 . 2 1 ) F L ( 1 6 6 . 8 7 ) F L 4 3.5% 1 6 7 . 4 5 R I M 1 6 16 8 6 " S D ( 8 " W ) ( 6 " S S ) P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N E X I S T I N G D O M E S T I C W A T E R E X I S T I N G S A N I T A R Y S E W E R L E G E N D P R O P O S E D 3 ' W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T E X I S T I N G E A S E M E N T F U T U R E R I G H T O F W A Y P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P O S E D W A T E R M E T E R P R O P O S E D C O M B I N A T I O N M E T E R / B A C K F L O W F L O W L I N E C O N C R E T E A S P H A L T L A N D S C A P E P R O P O S E D 1 2 ' S O U N D W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T P R O P O S E D D O U B L E C H E C K D E T E C T O R P R O P O S E D 6 ' W A L L P E R A R C H I T E C T C E N T E R L I N E P R O P O S E D C A T C H B A S I N P R O P O S E D A R E A D R A I N P R O P O S E D S E W E R C L E A N O U T P A V E R S P E R L A N D S C A P E P L A N P E R V I O U S C O N C R E T E 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 S C A L E : 1 " = 2 0 ' 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y 4 " A C O V E R 1 2 " A G G R E G A T E B A S E 6 " P C C P A V E M E N T 6 " C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y E N T R A N C E 6 " C O N C R E T E D R I V E W A Y A P R O N 0 " C O N C R E T E C U R B 2 " C O N C R E T E C U R B 4 " C O N C R E T E C U R B 6 " C O N C R E T E C U R B C U R B T R A N S I T I O N ( V A R I E S P E R P L A N ) 1 ' W I D E C O N C R E T E V - G U T T E R 3 ' W I D E C O N C R E T E V - G U T T E R R E T A I N I N G W A L L S T O P S I G N A N D P A V E M E N T M A R K I N G P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M S T D . D E T A I L N O . 4 3 4 A N D 4 3 5 6 " P C C A L L E Y P E R C I T O F A N A H E I M S T D . D E T A I L N O . 1 3 1 5 " P R E C A S T P O R O U S C O N C R E T E P A V I N G S L A B A D J U S T E X I S T I N G S E W E R M A N H O L E T O F I N I S H E D G R A D E P E R S P P W C S T D . P L A N N O . 2 0 1 5 - 1 P R O T E C T I N P L A C E E X I S T I N G P O W E R P O L E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 P N O T E S : 1 . 6 " C O N C R E T E C U R B O N A L L E Y S H A L L B E P A I N T E D R E D . 2 . A L L O V E R H E A D S E R V I C E S W I T H I N P R O P O S E D S I T E S H A L L B E U N D E R G R O U N D E D . //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////NORTH ST. A . T . + S . F . R A I L R O A D NOTAPART FF=168.4GFF=167.9 F F = 1 6 8 . 5 G F F = 1 6 8 . 0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 BLDG 1BL D G 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 W6"SS W W 4"W4"W 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 8"FW8"FW 8 " F W 8 " F W 8 " F W 8 " F W 6"SS 6"SS 6"SDSDSD S D S D S D S D 8"W8"W 8"SS8"SS8"SS8"SS8"SS 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S S=0.0045S=0.0045S=0.0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S=0.0200 S=0.0200 S=0.0200 S=0.0100S=0.0050 S=0.0050167.18IE166.95 FL166.97 INV167.45 TC 167.48TG165.57IE164 . 8 8 I E 167. 7 3 T G 164.93IE167.40TG 1 6 4 . 4 4 I E 1 6 7 . 6 4 T G 1 6 3 . 9 3 I E 1 6 7 . 8 6 T G 167.48TG165.51IE167.48TG165.44IE 165. 7 3 I E 167.6 3 T G 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 1 6 5 . 6 7 I E 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 1 6 5 . 4 4 I E 1 6 7 . 6 3 T G 1 6 5 . 1 8 I E 1 6 7 . 7 8 T G 1 6 4 . 8 4 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 5 . 1 7 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 4 . 9 3 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 4 . 6 7 I E 1 6 7 . 7 2 T G 1 6 4 . 2 6 I E 1 6 8 . 5 8 T G 1 6 4 . 6 4 I E 1 6 8 . 3 5 T G 1 6 4 . 4 1 I E 1 6 8 . 1 9 T G 1 6 4 . 1 5 I E 1 6 7 . 9 4 T G 1 6 3 . 8 1 I E 167.36TG165.29IE 167.11TG165.15IE165.29IE 165.09IE164.87IE164. 8 0 I E 1 6 4 . 7 7 I E 1 6 4 . 7 6 I E 1 6 4 . 3 6 I E 1 6 4 . 2 6 I E 1 6 4 . 1 8 I E 1 6 3 . 8 5 I E 1 6 3 . 7 8 I E 1 6 3 . 7 3 I E 1 6 3 . 7 4 I E 1 6 4 . 0 7 I E 1 6 4 . 5 8 I E 1 6 7 . 2 7 T G 1 6 4 . 6 1 I E 165.23IE 1 6 7 . 4 6 T G 1 6 4 . 1 1 I E 165.06IE SD158.67IE SS 1 6 4 . 5 5 I E S D 1 5 9 . 4 5 I E S S 1 6 4 . 0 4 I E S D 1 6 0 . 2 1 I E S S 165.50IE165.50IE 1 6 5 . 6 0 I E 1 6 5 . 3 6 I E 1 6 5 . 1 0 I E 165.44IE165.38IE 1 6 5 . 0 9 I E 165. 4 9 I E 167.6 3 T G 165. 2 3 I E 167.6 3 T G 1 6 5 . 2 1 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 4 . 9 8 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 4 . 7 2 I E 1 6 7 . 8 3 T G 1 6 4 . 6 9 I E 1 6 8 . 5 8 T G 1 6 4 . 4 5 I E 1 6 8 . 3 5 T G 1 6 4 . 2 0 I E 1 6 8 . 1 9 T G 1 6 4 . 8 6 I E 1 6 4 . 6 0 I E 1 6 4 . 5 7 I E 1 6 4 . 3 4 I E 1 6 4 . 0 8 I E 165.60IE167.50TG 1 6 4 . 6 1 I E 1 6 4 . 3 7 I E 1 6 4 . 1 1 I E 1 6 4 . 6 3 I E 1 6 4 . 8 9 I E 1 6 5 . 1 3 I E 1 6 5 . 6 4 I E 1 6 5 . 4 0 I E 1 6 5 . 1 4 I E 1 0 . 5 ' 3 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 3 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 10.5'3'10.5'24 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 21 2 1 26 2 6 2 6 2626 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 6 3 . 8 6 I E 1 6 7 . 9 4 T G 2 6 27 167.43IE170.44TG23252525 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 252525 21 2 1 2 1 165.53IE167.82TG165.37IE26 S=0.0050S=0.0050 167.08IE7'2.5'8' 8' 2.5' 7' PL P L 3' 3' 3' 3' F U T U R E P L 5'TYP S=0.0050 E L E C T R I C A L T R A N S F O R M E R E L E C T R I C A L T R A N S F O R M E R UNIT1UNIT5 U N I T 7 ADAUNIT6 UNIT4ADAUNIT3UNIT2 U N I T 8 A D A U N I T 9 U N I T 1 1 U N I T 1 3 A D A U N I T 1 2 U N I T 1 0 U N I T 1 4 U N I T 1 5 U N I T 1 7 U N I T 1 8 U N I T 1 6 T FF=169.4GFF=168.4FF=169.6GFF=168.6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 BLDG 5BLD G 6 B L D G 7 6"SD 6"SD WW W 6"SS W 4"W4"W4"W4"W 4 " W 4 " W 4 " W 8"FW8"FW8"FW8"FW 8 " F W 8 " F W 8 " F W 6"SS6"SS 6"SS SDSDSD S D S D S D 6 " S S 8"SS8"SS8"SS8"SS8"SS8"SS 8 " S S 8 " S S 8 " S S S=0.0045S=0.0045S=0.0045S=0.0045S=0.0045S=0.0045 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S = 0 . 0 0 4 5 S= 0 . 0 0 4 5 S=0.0200S=0.0200 S=0.0500 S=0.0500 S=0.0200 S=0.0050 163.42IE168.02TG162.97IE168.19TG 1 6 2 . 3 9 I E 1 6 8 . 4 6 T G 168.58TG164.64IE168.35TG164.41IE168.19TG164.15IE167.94TG163.81IE 168.69TG164.13IE168.54TG163.90IE168.37TG163.64IE168.16TG163.23IE 1 6 8 . 7 9 T G 1 6 4 . 9 3 I E 1 6 8 . 6 3 T G 1 6 4 . 3 3 I E 1 6 8 . 4 5 T G 1 6 3 . 6 8 I E 1 6 8 . 2 5 T G 1 6 2 . 7 9 I E 1 6 8 . 9 0 T G 1 6 4 . 4 0 I E 1 6 8 . 7 8 T G 1 6 3 . 8 1 I E 1 6 8 . 6 5 T G 1 6 3 . 1 6 I E 163.73IE163.34IE163.23IE163.15IE162.75IE 1 6 2 . 3 2 I E 1 6 2 . 2 0 I E 1 6 2 . 1 1 I E 1 6 2 . 7 1 I E 162.7 2 I E 1 6 1 . 8 9 I E 1 6 1 . 8 6 I E 1 6 8 . 5 0 F S 1 6 1 . 9 5 I E 1 6 2 . 5 3 I E 163.04IE163.55IE 1 6 2 . 1 7 I E 1 6 8 . 4 6 T G 167.58TG163.59IE167.74TG163.08IE 1 6 7 . 8 5 T G 1 6 2 . 5 7 I E 1 6 2 . 1 5 I E 1 6 7 . 9 3 T G 163.53IE SD160.71IE SS163.01IE SD161.01IE SS 1 6 2 . 5 0 I E S D 1 6 1 . 3 1 I E S S 1 6 3 . 6 4 I E S S 1 6 1 . 9 7 I E S D 45' 1 6 3 . 1 3 I E 164.18IE168.69TG163.94IE168.54TG163.69IE168.37TG 164.92IE168.79TG164.32IE168.63TG163.68IE168.45TG 1 6 4 . 4 0 I E 1 6 8 . 9 0 T G 1 6 3 . 8 0 I E 1 6 8 . 7 8 T G 1 6 3 . 1 6 I E 1 6 8 . 6 5 T G 163.57IE 163.82IE 164.06IE164. 8 0 I E 164. 2 1 I E 163. 5 6 I E 1 6 4 . 2 8 I E 1 6 3 . 6 8 I E 1 6 3 . 0 4 I E 1 6 3 . 7 7 I E 1 6 4 . 3 7 I E 1 6 4 . 8 9 I E 1 6 4 . 2 9 I E 1 6 3 . 6 5 I E 163.60IE 163.86IE 164.10IE164.61IE164.37IE164.11IE 1 7 ' 1 0 ' 5 . 5 ' 3 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 3 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 10.5'3'10.5'10.5'3'10.5'2424 2 4 2 4 2222 2 2 2 2 2626 2 6 2 6 2626 2 6 162.83IE168.25TG26 2 8 2 7 1 6 8 . 0 6 I E 1 7 0 . 0 5 T G 2 3 252525252525 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 252525252525 2 1 2121 2 1 8'2.5'7' 8' 2.5' 7' PL PL P L 3'3' 3' F U T U R E P L F U T U R E P L 5'TYP S=0.0045 ELECTRICALTRANSFORMER E L E C T R I C A L T R A N S F O R M E R 1 6 7 . 5 8 F L 1 6 7 . 6 0 I N V 1 6 8 . 0 8 T C 162.82IE UNIT19UNIT20UNIT21UNIT23UNIT25UNIT24UNIT22UNIT26UNIT27UNIT29 U N I T 3 1 UNIT30 UNIT28 U N I T 3 2 U N I T 3 3 U N I T 3 5 U N I T 3 7 U N I T 3 6 U N I T 3 4 U N I T 3 8 U N I T 3 9 ( 8 " W ) ( 6 " S S ) S D E X I S T I N G D O M E S T I C W A T E R E X I S T I N G S A N I T A R Y S E W E R L E G E N D C E N T E R L I N E E X I S T I N G E A S E M E N T F U T U R E R I G H T O F W A Y P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P O S E D C A T C H B A S I N P R O P O S E D A R E A D R A I N P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N C O N C R E T E A S P H A L T L A N D S C A P E F L O W L I N E S S P R O P O S E D S A N I T A R Y S E W E R W P R O P O S E D D O M E S T I C W A T E R F W P R O P O S E D F I R E W A T E R P E R V I O U S C O N C R E T E 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y 6 " P V C S D R - 3 5 S T O R M D R A I N P I P E 8 " P V C S D R - 3 5 S T O R M D R A I N P I P E C A T C H B A S I N 6 " W I D E T R E N C H D R A I N 6 " D I A . A R E A D R A I N 1 2 " D I A . A R E A D R A I N S T O R M D R A I N C U R B O U T L E T U N D E R G R O U N D I N F I L T R A T I O N S Y S T E M ( 1 7 ' x 4 5 ' C M P S Y S T E M , 7 2 " P E R F O R A T E D P I P E ) 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 ( 8 " W ) ( 6 " S S ) S S E X I S T I N G D O M E S T I C W A T E R E X I S T I N G S A N I T A R Y S E W E R L E G E N D C E N T E R L I N E E X I S T I N G E A S E M E N T F U T U R E R I G H T O F W A Y P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P O S E D S E W E R C L E A N O U T P R O P O S E D S A N I T A R Y S E W E R C O N C R E T E A S P H A L T L A N D S C A P E S D P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N W P R O P O S E D D O M E S T I C W A T E R F W P R O P O S E D F I R E W A T E R P E R V I O U S C O N C R E T E //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////NOTAPARTSSEEEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E E North Street FF=168.4GFF=167.9 F F = 1 6 8 . 5 G F F = 1 6 8 . 0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 UNIT1UNIT5 U N I T 7 ADAUNIT6 U N I T 4 ADAUNIT3 UNIT2 BLDG 1 U N I T 8 A D A U N I T 9 U N I T 1 1 U N I T 1 3 A D A U N I T 1 2 U N I T 1 0 U N I T 1 4 U N I T 1 5 U N I T 1 7 U N I T 1 9 U N I T 1 8 U N I T 1 6 U N I T 2 0 U N I T 2 1 BL D G 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 159.85 INV159.75 INV159.09 INV158.30 INV 1 5 9 . 0 7 I N V 1 5 9 . 8 3 I N V 1 2 . 0 ' T Y P . 9 . 0 ' T Y P . 9 . 0 ' T Y P . 37 3 7 3 7 159.95 INVP.O.C.159.85 INVP.O.C.160.18 INVP.O.C.160.08 INVP.O.C.159.42 INVP.O.C.159.19 INVP.O.C.3131TYP.TYP.323232 1 6 0 . 6 2 I N V 1 6 0 . 5 2 I N V 1 5 9 . 8 6 I N V 1 6 0 . 7 2 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 6 2 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 9 5 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 8 5 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 1 9 I N V P . O . C . 1 5 9 . 9 6 I N V P . O . C . 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 6 1 . 3 8 I N V 1 6 1 . 2 8 I N V 1 6 0 . 6 2 I N V 1 6 1 . 4 8 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 1 . 3 8 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 1 . 7 1 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 1 . 6 1 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 9 5 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 0 . 7 2 I N V P . O . C . 3 1 3 1 T Y P . T Y P . 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 6 1 . 8 8 I N V 1 6 1 . 7 8 I N V 1 6 1 . 9 8 I N V 1 6 1 . 8 8 I N V 3 1 T Y P . 3 1 T Y P . S=0.020 S=0.020 S=0.020 S = 0 . 0 0 7 S = 0 . 0 0 7 S=0.007 1 5 9 . 4 5 I N V - 6 " S S 1 6 4 . 5 5 I N V 8 " S D 1 6 0 . 2 1 I N V - 6 " S S 1 6 4 . 0 4 I N V 8 " S D 157.58 INV 158.67 INV-6" SS165.06 INV 8" SDP S = 0 . 0 0 3 3 6 ( 1 6 0 . 1 5 I N V ) S=0.020 TYP.S=0.020 TYP.10.4'3533 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 . 0 ' 2 . 0 ' ( 1 6 0 . 1 4 I N V ) 3 6 36 P 34 3 4 3 4 3 4 S = 0 . 0 0 7 T EEEEEEEE E E E E E Wilhelmina Street FF=169.4GFF=168.4FF=169.6GFF=168.6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 UNIT19UNIT20UNIT21UNIT23UNIT25UNIT24UNIT22UNIT26UNIT27UNIT29 U N I T 3 1 UNIT30 UNI T 28 U N I T 3 2 U N I T 3 3 U N I T 3 5 U N I T 3 7 U N I T 3 6 U N I T 3 4 U N I T 3 8 U N I T 3 9 BLDG 5BLD G 6 B L D G 7 1 0 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 3737 3 7 3 7 161.88 INV161.78 INV161.12 INV 161.98 INVP.O.C.161.88 INVP.O.C.162.21 INVP.O.C.162.11 INVP.O.C.161.45 INVP.O.C.161.22 INVP.O.C.3131TYP.TYP.323232162.18 INV162.08 INV161.42 INV 162.28 INVP.O.C.162.18 INVP.O.C.162.51 INVP.O.C.162.41 INVP.O.C.161.75 INVP.O.C.161.52 INVP.O.C.3131TYP.TYP.323232 1 6 2 . 4 8 I N V 1 6 2 . 3 8 I N V 1 6 1 . 7 2 I N V 1 6 2 . 5 8 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 2 . 4 8 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 2 . 8 2 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 2 . 7 2 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 2 . 0 5 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 1 . 8 2 I N V P . O . C . 3 1 3 1 T Y P . T Y P . 3 2 3 2 3 2 160.33 INV160.63 INV 1 6 0 . 9 3 I N V 1 6 4 . 9 7 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 4 . 8 7 I N V P . O . C . 1 6 4 . 2 1 I N V P . O . C . S=0.020S=0.020 S=0.020 S = 0 . 0 0 3 S = 0 . 0 0 3 S=0.003 1 6 4 . 7 3 I N V 1 6 4 . 8 3 I N V 1 6 4 . 0 7 I N V 160.71 INV-6" SS163.53 INV 8" SD161.01 INV-6" SS163.01 INV 8" SD 1 6 1 . 3 1 I N V - 6 " S S 1 6 2 . 5 0 I N V 8 " S D 1 6 3 . 6 4 I N V - 6 " S S 1 6 1 . 9 7 I N V 8 " S D S=0.003 1 6 1 . 1 5 I N V S=0.020 36 3 2 3 7 S = 0 . 0 5 1 3 7 (160.15 INV) 1 6 1 . 1 6 I N V 1 6 8 . 5 2 R I M 1 6 3 . 5 7 I N V S = 0 . 0 2 0 T Y P . S = 0 . 0 2 0 T Y P . S = 0 . 0 2 0 T Y P . 35333533 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 2.0'2.0' 2 . 0 ' 3 6 P 343434 3 4 3 4 1 6 1 . 9 4 I N V 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 S C A L E : 1 " = 2 0 ' 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y S E W E R N O T E S 4 " P V C S D R 3 5 S E W E R L I N E A N D T R E N C H I N G A N D B E D D I N G P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 6 " P V C S D R 3 5 S E W E R L I N E A N D T R E N C H I N G A N D B E D D I N G P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 6 " V C P S E W E R L I N E A N D T R E N C H I N G A N D B E D D I N G P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M R E Q U I R E M E N T S R E M O V E E X I S T I N G 6 " V C P S E W E R M A I N A N D R E P L A C E W I T H N E W 8 " V C P S E W E R M A I N . T R E N C H I N G A N D B E D D I N G P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M R E Q U I R E M E N T S . T R A N S I T I O N F R O M P V C T O V C P P I P E U P S I Z E E X I S T I N G S E W E R M A N H O L E I N L E T / O U T L E T F R O M 6 " T O 8 " P E R S P P W C S T D . P L A N N O . 2 0 8 - 1 A N D C O N N E C T N E W 8 " S E W E R M A I N . 6 " S E W E R C L E A N O U T P R O T E C T I N P L A C E E X I S T I N G S E W E R M A N H O L E 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 P N O T E : 1 . E X I S T I N G S E W E R H O U S E C O N N E C T I O N S I N A L L E Y S H A L L B E R E C O N N E C T E D T O N E W 8 " S E W E R M A I N 4 " S S 6 " S D ( 8 " W ) ( 6 " S S ) 4 " F W 4 " W P R O P O S E D S A N I T A R Y S E W E R P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N E X I S T I N G D O M E S T I C W A T E R E X I S T I N G S A N I T A R Y S E W E R P R O P O S E D F I R E W A T E R P R O P O S E D D O M E S T I C W A T E R L E G E N D C E N T E R L I N E E X I S T I N G E A S E M E N T F U T U R E R I G H T O F W A Y P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P O S E D W A T E R M E T E R C O N C R E T E A S P H A L T P R O P O S E D C O M B I N A T I O N M E T E R / B A C K F L O W P R O P O S E D D O U B L E C H E C K D E T E C T O R L A N D S C A P E P E R V I O U S C O N C R E T E //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////NORTH ST. A . T . + S . F . R A I L R O A D NOTAPARTSSEEEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E E North Street FF=168.4GFF=167.9 F F = 1 6 8 . 5 G F F = 1 6 8 . 0 F F = 1 6 8 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 2 F F = 1 6 9 . 4 G F F = 1 6 8 . 4 UNIT1UNIT5 U N I T 7 ADAUNIT6 U N I T 4 ADAUNIT3 UNIT2 BLDG 1 U N I T 8 A D A U N I T 9 U N I T 1 1 U N I T 1 3 A D A U N I T 1 2 U N I T 1 0 U N I T 1 4 U N I T 1 5 U N I T 1 7 U N I T 1 9 U N I T 1 8 U N I T 1 6 U N I T 2 0 U N I T 2 1 BL D G 2 B L D G 3 B L D G 4 1 2 . 0 ' T Y P . 9 . 0 ' T Y P . 9 . 0 ' T Y P . 5454545151545454 515151515151 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 0 . 0 ' T Y P . 1 2 . 0 ' T Y P . 1 2 . 0 ' T Y P . 7 . 1 ' T Y P . 2 . 5 ' T Y P . 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 55 575653585373 7172527252 7 2 5 2 7 2 5 2 71 7 1 7 1 7 1 5.0' TYP.5.0'72 5.0' 7 1 7 1 7 4 4 6 0 . 1 ' SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FORIRRIGATION WATER METERAND LINE CONTINUATION 10.4' T EEEEEEEE E E E E E Wilhelmina Street FF=169.4GFF=168.4FF=169.6GFF=168.6 F F = 1 6 9 . 7 G F F = 1 6 8 . 7 F F = 1 6 9 . 8 G F F = 1 6 8 . 8 UNIT19UNIT20UNIT21UNIT23UNIT25UNIT24UNIT22UNIT26UNIT27UNIT29 U N I T 3 1 UNIT30 UNI T 28 U N I T 3 2 U N I T 3 3 U N I T 3 5 U N I T 3 7 U N I T 3 6 U N I T 3 4 U N I T 3 8 U N I T 3 9 BLDG 5BLD G 6 B L D G 7 1 0 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 5454545151545454 5151515151515454545151545454515151515151 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 72 52725272 5 2 7 2 717171 7 1 71 7 1 7 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 7 4 460.1' 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 S C A L E : 1 " = 2 0 ' 1 P E T E R S C A N Y O N R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 I R V I N E , C A . 9 2 6 0 6 T E L : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 8 5 0 0 , F A X : 9 4 9 - 3 8 7 - 0 8 0 0 I D S G r o u p C 5 5 5 7 7 D - C I T Y O F A N A H E I M F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y W A T E R N O T E S 2 " W A T E R L I N E 4 " D O M E S T I C W A T E R M A I N A W W A C 9 0 0 P V C P I P E 8 " D I P W A T E R L I N E 1 " W A T E R S U B - M E T E R 4 " C O M B I N A T I O N W A T E R M E T E R A N D R E D U C E D P R E S S U R E P R I N C I P L E B A C K F L O W P R E V E N T E R A S S E M B L Y P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M W A T E R S E R V I C E S S T A N D A R D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S S T D . N O . W - 2 2 9 . F I E L D V E R I F Y E X I S T I N G P U B L I C W A T E R M A I N A N D J O I N T O P R O P O S E D W A T E R L I N E W A T E R E A S E M E N T P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M W A T E R S E R V I C E S S T A N D A R D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S S T D . N O . W - 2 0 7 4 " W A T E R M A I N S E R V I C E 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 F I R E W A T E R N O T E S 6 " F I R E W A T E R L I N E . 8 " F I R E W A T E R L I N E . 8 " D O U B L E C H E C K D E T E C T O R B A C K F L O W P R E V E N T I O N A S S E M B L Y P E R C I T O F A N A H E I M W A T E R S E R V I C E S S T A N D A R D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S S T D . N O . W - 2 2 0 . F I R E H Y D R A N T P E R C I T Y O F A N A H E I M W A T E R S E R V I C E S S T A N D A R D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S S T D . N O . W - 1 1 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 Address Owner Name(s) Additional Resident Name(s) Support, Oppose, or Neutral Support Letter Date of 1st Visit Date of 2nd Visit Date of 3rd Visit Date of 4th Visit Notes English/Spanish 702/704 E. North St.Victor Mejia See notes.8-Dec 14-Dec Friendly, only concern mentioned was parking. Spoke to Mom, Dad, and two daughters. Appreciated that could improve surrounding neighborhood. They did not express oppostion to us, but found out later that they called City to oppose. Parents - Spanish; Children - English 754 N. Pauline St.Lilia Camacho Gabby Support 8-Dec 14-Dec Spoke to Gabby. She's happy that it will be safer in the alley.English 752 N. Pauline St.Eusebia Acevedo Not home 8-Dec 14-Dec Not home, left flyer with our contact info. 748 N. Pauline St. A Kiran Bhakta Trust Neutral 8-Dec 14-Dec Renter, said they don't care.Spanish 748 N. Pauline St. B Kiran Bhakta Trust Not home 8-Dec 14-Dec Not home, left flyer with our contact info. 742 N. Pauline St.Mauricio Mejia Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Friendly. Supported the project.Spanish 740 N. Pauline St.Eustorgio Nunez Garcia Freddy Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Said they supported the project. Mentioned that the apartments cause a parking issue in the neighborhood. English 736 N. Pauline St.Raul Tadeo Javier and Rosa Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Support the project and the upgrade. Spanish 732 N. Pauline St. A Carmen Hernandez Laura Neutral, Possibly Support 8-Dec 14-Dec Asked about loitering in the alley (this has been a problem--we explained that should improve).English 732 N. Pauline St. B Carmen Hernandez Neutral 8-Dec 14-Dec Didn't really care, renter. Did not get name.Spanish 728 N. Pauline St.Joe Murillo Trust Not home 8-Dec 14-Dec Not home, left flyer with our contact info. 724 N. Pauline St.Jose and Maria Lopez Not home 8-Dec 14-Dec Not home, left flyer with our contact info. 720 N. Pauline St.Juan Martinez Luis Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Supportive of the project, alley widening, improvement to the RV property. Parents - Spanish; Children - English 716 N. Pauline St.Angel and Guadalupe Ureno Neutral 8-Dec 14-Dec Renter. Doesn't care. Was napping when we showed up.Spanish 712 N. Pauline St.Jose and Rita Medina Cindy (Daughter)Support 8-Dec 14-Dec Cindy works for a monument sign company. Said wants to buy a home so can live behind parents. Went back to speak with father a few days later but he didn’t want to talk with us (Spanish only). Will stop by again next time. Parents - Spanish; Daughter - English 710 N. Pauline St.Vicente and Ines Raygoza Not home 8-Dec 14-Dec Not home, left flyer. 708 N. Pauline St.Jaime and Maria Zapien Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Happy with the new homes, that will have garages and guest parking, that alley will be upgraded. Spanish 705 N. Wilhelmina St.Not Available from County Melissa (Daughter)Support 8-Dec 14-Dec Happy that the RVs are going away.English 703 N. Wilhelmina St.Not Available from County Support X 8-Dec 14-Dec Happy that the area (RV lot) is being upgraded.Mom - Spanish; Son - English ATTACHMENT NO. 15 Downtown Anaheim 39 Response to Comments/Errata INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DEV2017-00124 Prepared for: The City of Anaheim 200 S Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Contact: Nick Taylor Applicant: 740 E La Palma, LLC 2390 E Orangewood Avenue, Suite 510 Anaheim, CA 92806 Prepared for the Applicant By: 2400 East Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim, CA 92806 (714) 783-1863 Contact: Amy Vazquez, Principal January 2019 ATTACHMENT NO. 16 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata This page intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1 2.2.1 Comment Letter A – South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).......... 2 2.2.2 Comment Letter B – Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) ................ 7 3. REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND 11 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata This page intentionally left blank. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 1 | Page 1. INTRODUCTION An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project (Proposed Project) and made available for public comment for a 20-day public review period from January 10, 2019, through January 29, 2019. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15074(b) (14 CCR 15074(b)), before approving the Proposed Project, the City of Anaheim (City), as the lead agency under CEQA, will consider the MND with any comments received during this public review period. Specifically, Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15074(b)) states the following: Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The agencies that provided substantive written comments on the environmental issues addressed within the IS/MND are listed in Table 1. Although CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) do not explicitly require a lead agency to provide written responses to comments received on a proposed IS/MND, the lead agency may do so voluntarily. A copy of each letter with bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response for each comment as indexed in the letter. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Table 1 - Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the IS/MND Comment Letter Commenting Organization, Person, or Public Agency Date A South Coast Air Quality Management District January 24, 2019 B Southern California Regional Rail Authority January 29, 2019 SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: January 24, 2019 njtaylor@anaheim.net Nick Taylor, Associate Planner City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND. SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to demolish a 68,000-square-foot parking lot and build 39 residential units on 1.57 acres (Proposed Project). Based on the surrounding land uses described in the MND, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located in close proximity to an industrial use and railroad tracks1. Construction is expected to take approximately 18 months2. SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis Section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared them to SCAQMD’s regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts from construction and operational activities would be less than significant. Additionally, to address compatibility with the adjacent railroad land use, the Lead Agency would require the Proposed Project to include three Project Design Features, including the construction of a six-foot high solid walls, provision of a “windows closed” condition for each proposed residential unit, and installation of an air filtration system rated at Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher with an additional fan unit3. SCAQMD Staff’s Comments Limits to Enhanced Filtration Units Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Because of the potential adverse health risks involved with siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution, it is essential that any proposed strategy must be carefully evaluated before implementation. As stated above, since enhanced filtration units are proposed for installation at the Proposed Project as a project design feature requirement, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the 1 MND. Page 11. 2 MND. Page 31. 3 MND. Page 12. A-1 A-2 A-3 Comment Letter A Nick Taylor January 24, 2019 2 limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters4, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. Moreover, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased operational costs in energy. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while people are indoors (or when the windows are closed), and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when people have their windows open or are outdoors (e.g., in common space areas of the project). In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. Guidance on Siting Sensitive Receptors near Sources of Air Pollution SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20055. This Guidance document provides recommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. CARB’s Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. Enforceability of Enhanced Filtration Units Since enhanced filtration units will be required for installation at the Proposed Project, and to ensure that they are enforceable and effective throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular maintenance, and monitoring of the filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future residents at the Proposed Project, the Final MND should, at a minimum, include the following information: Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of sources of air pollution (e.g., railroad tracks and industrial facility) and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open, if applicable, and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., in the common usable open space areas); Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are inspected regularly; Provide information to residents on where the MERV 13 filers can be purchased; 4 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see the 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete- guidance-document.pdf. A-4 A-5 A-3 (cont) Nick Taylor January 24, 2019 3 Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents; Provide recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units to prospective residents; Identify the responsible entity such as residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or property management for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time, if appropriate and feasible (if residents should be responsible for the periodic and regular purchase and replacement of the enhanced filtration units, the Lead Agency should include this information in the disclosure form); Identify, provide, and disclose any ongoing cost sharing strategies, if any, for the purchase and replacement of the enhanced filtration units; Set City-wide or Project-specific criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and Develop a City-wide or Project-specific process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS ORC190115-05 Control Number A-5 (cont) A-6 A-7 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 5 | Page Responses to Comment Letter A – South Coast Air Quality Management District A-1: Summary of Project Description comment is acknowledged. No further response is required. A-2: SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis comment is acknowledged. No further response is required. A-3: Project Design Feature 3 requires that the Property Owner/Developer require that all proposed residential units include a heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) unit that has an air filtration system rated at a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher. Each HVAC system shall include an additional fan unit designed to force air through the MERV filter as well as maintain positive pressure within the interior of each home. The Homeowners Association would enforce the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for each unit, which would include requirements to maintain the MERV 13 filters according to manufacturer instructions. Please see response to comment A-5 below for additional information. A-4: SCAQMD Staff’s comments regarding guidance for recommended land use policies to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health, as well as for siting incompatible land uses, is acknowledged. No further response is required. A-5: SCAQMD staff recommendations regarding the enforceability of the MERV 13 filters is acknowledged. In order to address this comment, the following conditions of approval would be added to the Proposed Project: • Prior to issuance of permit for occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall install MERV 13 filters in the HVAC system; • Prior to the issuance of a permit for occupancy, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit to the City of Anaheim its Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that shall provide the following information to all potential home buyers regarding the Project Site’s proximity to sources of toxic air contaminant emissions (i.e., nearby railroad and industrial uses): o Disclosure that there are potential health impacts to prospective residents from living near sources of air pollution (e.g., railroad and industrial facilities). The disclosure shall describe the enhanced HVAC filtration unit, the reduced effectiveness of the air filtration system when the windows are open, and that potential health impacts could occur when residents are outdoors in the common usable open space areas; o Disclosure that there would be a potential increase in energy costs from continuously running the HVAC systems with MERV 13 filters; o Information for residents on where the MERV 13 filters can be purchased and Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 6 | Page that their periodic replacement according to manufacturer instructions is the responsibility of the homeowner; o Detailed instructions on the maintenance schedule the MERV 13 filters according to manufacturer instructions; and o Advise that the Homeowners Association representative/Property Maintenance representative may inspect the HVAC units and proper installation of the MERV 13 filters with appropriate advanced notice. A-6: Comment regarding CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 and providing written response to comments to SCAQMD is acknowledged. The City of Anaheim will provide a copy of this Response to Comments/Errata to SCRRA staff prior to certification of the IS/MND. A-7: Comment regarding contacting SCAQMD staff is acknowledged. No further response is necessary. B - 1 B - 2 B - 3 B - 4 B - 5 C o m m e n t L e t t e r B B - 5 ( c o n t ) B - 6 B - 7 B - 8 B - 9 B - 1 0 Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 9 | Page Response to Comment Letter B – Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) B-1: Comment regarding background of SCRRA is acknowledged. No further response is necessary. B-2: Comment regarding ownership and operation of the adjacent rail line is acknowledged. No further response is necessary. B-3: Comment regarding train operations on the adjacent rail line is acknowledged. No further response is necessary. B-4: Comment regarding no provisions for access to the railroad right-of-way is acknowledged. The Proposed Project will be constructed with no access to the railroad. B-5: As required by Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1, the Property Owner/Developer shall install a 12-foot high wall, as measured from the Project Site side of the wall, on the north and east property line separating the recreational open space from the railroad tracks, as shown on Figure 7 – Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. Project Design Feature 1 requires that the Property Owner/Developer shall construct six-foot high solid walls on the northern and southern property lines and between the proposed structures and the northern and southern walls on the eastern property line. The walls shall be constructed with concrete masonry units (cmu) and be free of cutouts or openings. In order to address this comment, the following condition of approval will be added to the Proposed Project: •Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit wall plans for the east property line to the SCRRA Engineering Department for review to ensure that the wall doesn't encroach into the railroad right- of-way. The plans shall show that the concrete block walls proposed on the east property line shall be constructed entirely on the Project Site and not encroach into the railroad right-of-way. B-6: In order to address this comment, the following condition of approval will be added to the Proposed Project: •Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit the final landscape plans to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that show trees planted on or adjacent to the east property line shall not have branches that extend beyond the east property line. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the trees to prevent branches from extending beyond the east property line. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 10 | Page B-7: Figure 15 – Conceptual Storm Drain Plan details the drainage plan for the Project Site. Drainage would not be conveyed into the railroad right-of-way. In order to address this comment, the following condition of approval will be added to the Proposed Project: • Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit final storm drain plans to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department showing that no drainage shall be conveyed onto the railroad right-of-way. B-8: Comment regarding coordination of demolition and Right of Entry agreement is acknowledged. In order to address this comment, the following condition of approval will be added to the Proposed Project: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department a Right of Entry Agreement, if required by SCRRA. The Property Owner/Developer or its successor shall submit demolition plans to the SCRRA Engineering Department Attn: Andy Althorp, Principal Engineer, 2558 Supply Street, Pomona, CA 91767 for review and if required, a Right of Entry agreement. B-9: Comment regarding notice of the written response to comments and public meetings or hearings by the agency decision makers at least 10 days prior to such meeting pertain to and Environmental Impact Report. An MND has been prepared for the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, the City of Anaheim will provide a copy of this Response to Comments/Errata to SCRRA staff prior to certification of the IS/MND. Notice of the public hearing scheduled for the Proposed Project was included in the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Downtown Anaheim 39 Residential Project Response to Comments/Errata 11 | Page 3. REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND No revisions to the IS/MND were required based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of IS/MND publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. ATTACHMENT NO. 17 1 Nicholas J. Taylor From:Laura Hernandez <stirfrydbeans@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 7:15 PM To:Nicholas J. Taylor Subject:Pauline Street 39 Unit Condo Project Dear Mr. Taylor, We are writing to express our views on the plan to develop 39-unit condominium subdivision along the Pauline St. alley between North St. and Wilhelmina St. We live on 732 N. Pauline St. since 1978 on the property that my grandfather had owned since it was built. We feel that the proposed project is completely ridiculous! Although, the supporters of this project, who twice came to visit, claim that it will bring many benefits this neighborhood, such as increased property value, the negative affects will be far greater. The traffic down Pauline street can be very heavy at times, not to mention dangerous (speeding)and the parking situation is a weekly nightmare. Some folks park in the alleyway because there isn’t enough parking on Pauline st. Nearly every home occupies more people than intended and each has more cars than their properties can accommodate. We also have a quite a number of people that live on a different block or even different street parking on this block. It’s a fight to find parking but will be worse if this project goes through. As explained to us, the front doors of these condos will face the alley. Hard to imagine having the back end/alleyway as your front view is an incentive to live there. Not to mention the train noise and ground shaking from the trains going by. We hope this project will NOT get approved. Regards, Carmen, Laura and Kathy Hernandez Stirfrydbeans@yahoo.com 732 N Pauline St. Anaheim CA 92805 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad 1 Nicholas J. Taylor From:Lorena MEJIA <lmejia76@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:23 PM To:Nicholas J. Taylor Cc:Lorena MEJIA; Angie Mejia; mmejia@theabbeyco.com Subject:Development Project No. 2017-00124 CUP No. 2018-05980 Hello Mr. Taylor, I am writing to you in regards to the above mentioned project. My family has recently learned of the plan to construct a 39 home tract behind our home. This project really concerns us for many reasons. As your studies have probably already shown you and validated, this entire neighborhood is impacted with residents and vehicles. There is very little to no parking at all. It is a constant struggle to find any parking close by. At times we have to park quite far, and walk to our home. This is especially an inconvenience and a safety issue when getting home from a late night shift. The idea of having 39 new homes added to this neighborhood will not only blow the parking ratio out of proportion, but will quite frankly make it impossible to find parking. I find it outrageous that the City has not taken any of this into consideration. I'm sure studies have been made that have confirmed what I'm telling you. This should not be news to you and your team. Another concern is the safety of our children. Currently our home resides at the end of North Street, which aside from the small alley-way behind our house, is a cul de sac. Providing more of a private type environment. It looks like the project, considers North to be their entrance. This will cause an exorbitant amount of traffic, thus making it unsafe for our children. Therefore causing us (the affected residents), and The City additional safety concerns. The project provides that each home will have a two car garage and 28 open parking spaces. This means the parking ratio is 2.7 per home. In the real world, we know that is not going to be the case. Each home needs at a bare minimum of 4 stalls. Nowadays, kids are driving younger and are in need of transportation. Therefore the parking ratio the project is proposing is unacceptable as it will only mean that those homes with more than 2 vehicles will look elsewhere for parking. What does that mean to us as the affected residents? That the proposed new home residents will come out to the streets to park. Leaving vehicles in front of homes for days if not weeks without moving. That is the current situation now and it will only get worse if these homes are constructed. The City of Anaheim is overpopulated and most definitely under-parked in most neighborhoods. I don't oppose to the construction of the homes. If the City of Anaheim is looking for more revenue, I'm ok with that, but lets not sacrifice the current residents of the area while doing so. How about the tract have less homes and suitable parking with the entrance/exit on La Palma Ave. This way the residents on North / Wilhelmina / Pauline / Sycamore don't have to suffer the consequences. There has to be a more effective way of doing this project with the least amount of impact to the nearby residents. Our family has lived in this area for almost a half a century. Please consider the havoc that this could bring upon many families who are in the same situation as us. Thanks for your time. Lorena Barrios 714-356-9753 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 3