PC 2019/05/29
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Michelle Lieberman
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Kimberly Keys
• Commissioners: John Armstrong, Natalie Meeks, Rosa Mulleady,
Dave Vadodaria, 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, May 23, 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
05-29-2019
Page 2 of 4
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
05-29-2019
Page 3 of 4
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06002
(DEV2018-00027)
Location: Northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and
Union Street - Platinum Triangle
Request: A 154-unit condominium development with
building setbacks adjacent to the street that are less
than the minimum width required by Code (10 feet
required; 2.5 feet proposed).
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the previously
certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and
associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06003
(DEV2018-00034)
Location: Northeast corner of Gene Autry Way and
Westside Drive - Platinum Triangle
Request: 84 dwelling units located within 28 triplex
townhome buildings that are located closer to each other
than minimum distance required by Code (20 feet
required; 11.8 feet proposed).
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the previously
certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and
associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, June 10, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
05-29-2019
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
2:15 p.m. May 22, 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: MAY 29, 2019
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06002
LOCATION: The subject property is 5.37 acres, located at the northwest corner of
Gene Autry Way and Union Street (A-Town Development Area G).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is PT
Metro LLC represented by Maria Korkosz and the agent is Ted Frattone from
Hunsaker and Associates.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a
154-unit condominium development in 11 buildings in Development Area G of the
Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay
Zone. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to permit building setbacks adjacent to the street that are less than the minimum width
required by Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions, determining that the previously certified Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and associated
Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and
approving Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-
06002.
BACKGROUND: In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive
citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update that established a new vision for the
Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update created new
land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for
existing, largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and
commercial uses. This General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which at that time permitted up to
9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300 square
feet of commercial uses.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 2 of 11
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
and the PTMU Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum Triangle. Under these
updated zoning regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement between
property owners and the City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone.
For projects over twelve acres, a Master Site Plan may be approved in lieu of a Final Site Plan, as
is the case with this development application. A Master Site Plan typically identifies the
development proposal in a broad scope, depicting street layouts, development areas and
infrastructure improvement areas. A Final Site Plan provides greater detail including plans for the
specific buildings, parking areas, landscaping and other improvements. In order to implement a
Master Site Plan, a developer is required to subsequently submit a Final Site Plan for each building
that is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP and Zoning Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of
office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of
the related actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC
to construct the A-Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential
units; 150,000 square feet of commercial uses; two public parks; and, a network of local streets.
An addendum to FSEIR 332 was prepared and approved as part of the A-Town Metro Project. On
November 8, 2005, City Council approved a Development Agreement for the A-Town Metro
Project, which was recorded on December 13, 2005. On December 16, 2008, City Council
approved an amendment to the Development Agreement to allow additional time to complete
certain milestones. The amended Development Agreement was recorded on February 23, 2009.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable
development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909
residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses;
and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR
No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum development intensities to up to 17,501
residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243 square feet of commercial uses;
and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay
Zone, and an amended and restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan
for the revised A-Town Metro Project. This revised project permitted development of between
1,400 and 1.746 residential units, and between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses,
two public parks, and a network of local streets within the A-Town Metro Project area. The City
Council also approved the Final Site Plan for the first phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a
400-unit apartment project with a 6-story parking structure in Development Area A.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 3 of 11
The 43.1-acre A-Town Metro Project site is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU
Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The
property is surrounded by multi-family and commercial uses to the north across Katella Avenue;
industrial, office, residential and commercial uses to the east; residential property to the south
across Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. The subject property is currently
undeveloped but was “rough-graded” and improved with the majority of the infrastructure for the
previously approved A-Town Metro Project. Additionally, the first phase of the A-Town
development, Development Area A located to the east of the subject property, has been
development with 400 apartment units.
A-Town Infrastructure Development
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 4 of 11
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct the second phase of the A-Town development
in Development Area G with a 154-unit condominium project with a residential density of 29.1
dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Master Site
Plan. Along with the 11 proposed residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area
improvements will include landscape walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool,
spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for the residents. Dwelling units will
range in size from approximately 1,140 square feet to 1,648 square feet.
Development Area G Site Plan
Li
n
e
a
r
P
a
r
k
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 5 of 11
The proposed project consists of 154 dwelling units in 11 three-story buildings. Each building has
14 units with four residential product types (four flats). The proposed unit mix consists of 22 one-
bedroom flats, 88 two-bedroom flats, and 44 three-bedroom flats.
The project's modern architectural style is compatible with the surrounding environment and
development, while distinguishing the site with its own unique features to create a sense of place
within the Platinum Triangle. The elevation design for the project is sensitive to the pedestrian
scale to help create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian
activity. Lastly, the building design works to create a balance of landscape and architecture by
providing sufficient planting space for a very pleasant urban pedestrian experience along the street
setback areas and internal common areas. Additionally, the project design is consistent with the
project proposed on Development Area H.
As shown in the rendering the below, the proposed project includes building projections and patios
along the street frontage. These patios and projections comprise more of the building setback area
than is permitted by the Code; however, the PTMU Overlay Zone allows modifications to these
setback requirements through the approval of a CUP. Staff further describes and analyzes this
request in the “Findings and Analysis” section of this staff report.
Rendering at Union Street and Meridian Street
The project's site design incorporates the following features to comply with the design standards
of the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone and the A-Town Master Site Plan and to provide a
vibrant walkable community with high quality landscaping and architecture.
The proposed project includes pedestrian walkways throughout the project site to connect
residents to Union Street and to the Aloe Promenade Park, as well as to the on-site
recreation center and other residential buildings.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 6 of 11
Architectural features include raised building porches, a common building entrance and
balconies fronting on perimeter connector streets (Meridian Street and Union Street) and
to the Aloe Promenade Park to activate the adjacent street parkways and park areas.
Common areas with landscaping and trees will provide shaded walkways and will create
visual interest as well as complement the building architecture.
A recreation center with pool, spa, sun deck and community building for the residents will
provide a focal amenity to enjoy active recreation and a space to host parties as well as
informal gatherings.
All units will have either a private patio or balcony for private recreation and leisure space
for the residents.
Enhanced building corner elevations and landscaping at Gene Autry Way/Union Street and
Meridian/Union Street intersections will provide focal points and create visual interest for
pedestrians.
Parking
Parking for the proposed project will comply with the Code requirements for that were in place at
the time the Council approved the Development Agreement for the A-Town Master Site Plan. The
City Council has subsequently adopted higher parking requirements for the Platinum Triangle that
are consistent with the parking requirements for multi-family housing throughout the City;
however, the City cannot apply the new requirements to the proposed project because the
Development Agreement “locks in” the Code requirements in place at the time of the approval of
the Development Agreement.
Each of the 11 buildings provides parking in 26 garage spaces, for a total of 286 garage spaces.
The project allocates each unit one to two garage spaces based on the units' bedroom counts. The
residents and their guests also have access to 22 additional parking spaces on-site and 11 on-street
parking spaces along Union Street. Collectively, the 286 garage spaces, 22-on-site spaces, and 11
on-street spaces supply 319 parking spaces; Code requires 319 spaces for the proposed project.
The PTMU Overlay Zone permits the use of on-street parking spaces to count toward meeting the
Code-required parking for residential uses subject to the approval of a Parking Management Plan
by the City’s Traffic and Transportation Manager. Additionally, in order for the City to count the
on-street parking spaces toward meeting the project’s parking requirement, the streets must be
private.
The interior streets of A-Town are public streets and as such must be available to the public to
freely use unless regulated pursuant to California law. While State law recognizes the City’s
ability to establish residential parking permit areas, it does not otherwise allow for the private use
of parking spaces on public streets. Therefore, the applicant has requested to privatize the public
streets and take over the associated street maintenance. Staff concurs with this approach. Final
Site Plan Condition No. 46 requires the finalization of the private street prior to building
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 7 of 11
occupancy. The applicant has agreed to provide public access easements over the private streets
to allow for public vehicle and pedestrian access in perpetuity. The request to privatize a street is
subject to the approval of the City Council. The applicant is currently working with staff to bring
the request before the City Council in the near future.
Staff has also been working with the applicant on the Parking Management Plan and has agreed to
the applicant’s proposed plan in concept. However, the Traffic and Transportation Manager has
not yet approved the plan because Union Street is currently a public street. The applicant has
agreed to a condition of approval that will require final approval of the Parking Management Plan
by the Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to the occupancy of the project (Final Site Plan
Condition No. 24).
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Master Site Plan: The City Council approved the A-Town Master Site Plan in 2015 in conjunction
with its approval of the Development Agreement. The Master Site Plan established eight
Development Areas (A through H) in the plan. The Code requires review and approval of Final
Site Plans to implement the individual mixed-use or residential projects within each Development
Area of the Master Site Plan. The Planning Commission must review and approve these Final Site
Plans at noticed public hearings prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Master Site Plan includes a minimum and maximum development range for the build-out of
the A-Town Metro project. This range allows the development of a minimum of 1,400 residential
units and a maximum of 1,746 residential units within the eight Development Areas. Each
Development Area has a target density range for the minimum and maximum number of residential
units permitted. Each Development Area can develop within that density range, provided the total
units in the Master Site Plan did not go below the minimum or above the maximum number of
units. The density range for Area G is 106-159 dwelling units. The proposed project (154 units)
is within this density range.
However, in the adjacent development area, Area H, the target density range is 90-99 units and the
proposed project is 84 units. The Planning Commission is considering the Final Site Plans for
Areas G and H at its May 29, 2019 meeting, as separate agenda items. The applicant has submitted
a letter of justification for the reduction of units below the target range for Area H (Attachment
No. 6 to the Area H staff report). In this letter, the applicant describes the current market demand
for triplex and traditional row townhomes. In an effort to meet this market demand and provide a
for-sale residential development to compliment other housing products in the Platinum Triangle,
the developer concluded that it could not meet the target unit range for Area H. The applicant
identifies in the letter that because the subject proposed project in Area G will have 154 units, near
the maximum allowed for Area G (159 units), the combined number of units for Areas G and H
would be at the high end of the range for both development areas combined (238 dwelling units,
combined range 196-258 units). Staff concurs that for-sale units are an important component to
providing a mix of residential products in the Platinum Triangle. Staff has the discretion, and has
concluded that since together the proposed projects in Areas G and H, meet the targeted densities,
the proposed project in Area H substantially complies with the Master Site Plan. Notwithstanding,
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 8 of 11
the subject project in Area G would comply with the Master Site Plan with or without the proposed
project in Area H.
Final Site Plan: Before the Planning Commission may approve a Final Site Plan application, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan,
any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials,
texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained;
and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed Final Site Plan was designed to be consistent with the General Plan and the
PTMLUP, as well as the PTMU Overlay Zone. The layout of the development is compatible with
the street configuration of the A-Town Master Site Plan and with the adjacent industrial and future
residential properties to the east. Staff believes that this apartment project would not interfere with
the use or enjoyment of the neighboring and future developments that that this property would
create a desirable urban environment for the residents. For these reasons staff recommends
approval of the Final Site Plan.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Before the Planning Commission may approve a CUP, 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 CUP is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular
area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 9 of 11
5) That the granting of the CUP under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Additionally, pursuant to Code section 18.20.090.050 (Modifications) the approval of a
modification to prescribed setbacks requires the following finding of fact:
1) The proposed use meets the minimum landscape requirements.
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to modify the prescribed building setbacks
for the building corners located at the intersections of Gene Autry and Union Street, and at
Meridian Street and Union Street.
The tables below show the required and proposed building setbacks, encroachments and
landscaping for these streets:
Gene Autry Way Minimum
Setback
Permitted Encroachments Minimum Landscaping Building Patios
Code Requirement 9.5 feet
3 feet for no more
than 30% of the
length of the street
elevation
5 feet
The area between
residential patios and the
sidewalk/walkway shall
be fully landscaped
Proposed 2.5 feet 3 feet 5 feet Landscaping provided as
required by Code
Union Street and
Meridian Street
Minimum
Setback
Permitted Encroachments Minimum Landscaping
Building Patios
Code Requirement 10 feet
3 feet for no more
than 30% of the
length of the street
elevation
7 feet
The area between
residential patios and the
sidewalk/walkway shall
be fully landscaped
Proposed 4 feet 3 feet 7 feet Landscaping provided as
required by Code
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 10 of 11
The following figures depict the proposed modifications:
Setback Modification at Gene Autry/Union Streets
Setback Modification at Union/Meridian Streets
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004 (Area G)
May 29, 2019
Page 11 of 11
In accordance with the required findings for a CUP, staff believes that the proposed building
encroachments would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, as the encroachments are not
adjacent to the surrounding development areas. The buildings are designed to allow the full
development of the site and would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the residents. The
building encroachments would not have any effect on the traffic generated by the use and would
not impose a burden on the streets in the development. Staff believes that the proposed building
encroachments would further the objectives of the PTMU Overlay Zone by contributing to the
unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and that the
appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character
of the area.
Code requires that the area between the patios and the sidewalk be fully landscaped. The plans
indicate proposed landscaping between the patios and the sidewalk as required by Code. The
finding can be made that the proposed use meets the minimum landscape requirements. For these
reasons staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that
previously certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for
this request. An environmental checklist (Attachment No. 7) was prepared to determine that the
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, and
subsequent addenda, adequately analyzed the anticipated effects of the proposed project; and, that
the approved mitigation measures are appropriate for the project.
CONCLUSION: The proposed development is a carefully designed and planned project that
addresses the current and projected market conditions while continuing the implementation of the
A-Town Master Site Plan. The project also conforms to the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone
and staff believes that the proposed development would be an appropriate addition to the Platinum
Triangle. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Susan Kim
Senior Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Final Site Plan Resolution
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Final Site Plan Exhibits
4. Draft Parking Management Plan
5. Letter of Request
6. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda
7. Environmental Checklist For EIR 339
8. Comments Received
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area ADEV 2018-0002 7VACANT
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area CSOUTHERN CALIFORNIAGAS COMPANYOFFICES
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area AVACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area CINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area BJEFFERSON STADIUM PARK/ UNDER CONSTRUCTION APARTMENTS
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area BJEFFERSON STADIUM PARK/ UNDER CONSTRUCTION APATMENTS
I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)KatellaSub-Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub-Area BA-TOWN METROAPARTMENTS
E GENE AUTRY WAY
E PARK ST
S U N I O N S T
S W E S T S I D E D R
E MERIDIAN ST
G E N E A U T R Y W A Y
S M A R K E T S T
S U N I O N S T
GENE AUTRY WAY
S J A C A R A N D A S T
E. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
S .D O U G L A S S
R D
S . A N A H E I M B L V D
S .S U N K I S T
S T
S . C L E M E N T I N E S T
No r t h we s t co r n e r o f G e n e Au t r y W a y a n d Un i o n S t r e e t
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 2 7
Subject Property APN: 232-121-35
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 8
E GENE AUTRY WAY
E PARK ST
S U N I O N S T
S W E S T S I D E D R
E MERIDIAN ST
G E N E A U T R Y W A Y
S M A R K E T S T
S U N I O N S T
GENE AUTRY WAY
S J A C A R A N D A S T
E. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
S .D O U G L A S S
R D
S . A N A H E I M B L V D
S .S U N K I S T
S T
S . C L E M E N T I N E S T
No r t h we s t co r n e r o f G e n e Au t r y W a y a n d Un i o n S t r e e t
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 2 7
Subject Property APN: 232-121-35
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 8
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2019-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT AREA 'G' OF THE MASTER SITE PLAN
APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004)
(DEV2018-00027)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
- 2 - PC2019-***
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
- 3 - PC2019-***
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
- 4 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
- 5 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
- 6 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Exisiting Entitlements
was approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27,
2015, the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015
as Instrument No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
- 7 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Final Site Plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
- 8 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 to construct a 154-unit condominium development at
the premises located at the northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street in Development
Area G of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle 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, in connection with Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, and environmental
checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant environmental
impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339 Addendum No. 4
would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more
severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any changes in
circumstances involving the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004; therefore, the Final Site Plan No.
2018-00004 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously
identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human
beings would occur because of the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements collectively constitute the
environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual relating to the Existing Entitlements and shall be
referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, 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 proposed Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission has found and
determined and has recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the other CEQA Documents
collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to
CEQA relating to the Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution,
the CEQA Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plan No. 2018-
- 9 - PC2019-***
00004 and the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted;
and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under
CEQA for Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find and determine that the request for a Final
Site Plan for the Proposed Project should be approved for the following reasons:
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, the Final Site Plan, including its design and
layout, complies with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Zone, as
described in Chapter 18.20 of the Code.
2. The design and layout of Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 will not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 is compatible with the
character of the surrounding residential and industrial development located within the land area of
the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
4. The design of the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 will provide a desirable
environment for its residents, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of
materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately
maintained.
5. Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, 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.
- 10 - PC2019-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, Addendum No. 4, the other CEQA
Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends that the City
Council approve Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, in the form presented at the meeting at which
this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of (1) Conditional Use
Permit No. 2019-06002, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation
Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth in a separate resolution of this Planning Commission adopted relating
to the Existing Development Agreement. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be
declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction,
then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 29, 2019.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 11 - 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 May 29, 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 29th day of May, 2019.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-12- PC2019-***
-13- PC2019-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00004
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO GRADING PLAN APPROVAL
1 Condition Numbers 35 and 36 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
2 The developer/owner 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
3 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 Prepare and submit a final drainage 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
Division
5 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
6 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
Division
7 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
Division
-14- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
8 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for
review and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/
Significant Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of
pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the
proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff
from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment
Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMPs) to control or
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and
provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation
of and compliance with the defined BMPs. Submit three (3) copies and
a plan checking deposit to the Public Works/Development Services for
consideration and approval.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
9 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report
shall address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069
for the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to
this permit.
Various City
Departments
12 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
13 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
14 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
-15- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
15 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
16 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines,
as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing
water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated
and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
17 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
18 The developer/owner 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
19 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department
Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water
system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-16- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and
Regulations.
20 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering
Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved
by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be
posted with the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
21 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for recycled water system
requirements and specific water conservation measures to be
incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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
24 A Parking Management Plan detailing the use of the on-street parking
for the project shall be submitted for review by the Traffic and
Transportation Manager. Building permits may not be issued until the
Parking Management Plan has been approved.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
25 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
Division
-17- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
26 The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 5-ft public
sidewalk easement across A-Drive at Union Street.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
27 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
Division
28 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance complies with
the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(AV 1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
29 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 The Developer shall submit an abandonment application for Meridian
Street, Park Street, Metro Drive and portions of Union Street and
Westside drive to the City for review and approval. Limits as determined
by the City Engineer shall be finalized during the abandonment process.
The City will reserve a public utility, pedestrian and vehicle access
easement across the abandoned streets.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 All onsite drives shall be private, owned and maintained by the Home
Owner’s Association. A solid waste and emergency vehicle access
easement shall be dedicated across the private drives.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 On-site Sewer and Storm Drain shall be private, owned and maintained
by the Home Owner’s Association.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
33 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
34 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
35 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
-18- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
36 Owner 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
37 A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be filed with CR&R’s for project. Public Works,
Streets and Sanitation
38 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer,
inspected and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building
and zoning inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
39 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must
be paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
40 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 Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
41 Condition Numbers 100 and 101 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Fire Department
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
42 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT
43 Condition Numbers 106 through 109 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department and
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
44 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled
on building plans.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
-19- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
45 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
46 Approval from the City Council is required to vacate the public streets
and finalize the privatization of these streets as depicted in the Final Site
Plan exhibits.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
GENERAL
47 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
48 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan
for the A-Town Development shall apply to this Final Site Plan
approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
49 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
50 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.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
51 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
52 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no
equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
54 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation
of those identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified
in the measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of
approval by reference.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
-20- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
55 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
56 The developer shall pay all applicable fees required under the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
57 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying
and holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City
Council from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the
foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related
decision, or the adoption of any environmental documents which relates
to the approval of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall
include, but is not limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses,
attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be awarded to the
prevailing party, and costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other costs,
liabilities and expenses arising out of or in connection with the approval
of the application or related decision, whether or not there is concurrent,
or passive negligence on the part of the City, its agents, officers, council
members, employees, boards, commissions and their members and the
City Council. The property owner/developer shall have the right to
select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing
the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City Council's
adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2019-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 'G' OF THE MASTER SITE
PLAN APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06002)
(DEV2018-00027)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
- 2 - PC2019-***
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
- 3 - PC2019-***
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
- 4 - PC2019-***
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
- 5 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
- 6 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
- 7 - PC2019-***
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Final Site Plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 to modify development standards for building
setbacks that are less than the minimum width required by the Zoning Code at the premises located
at the northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street in Development Area G of the Lennar
A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle 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, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, and
environmental checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant
environmental impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 4 would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be
substantially more severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any
- 8 - PC2019-***
changes in circumstances involving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002; therefore,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater
severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation
measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because of the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2019-06002, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in
conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing
Entitlements collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as
the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual relating to the
Existing Entitlements and shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, 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 proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission has found and
determined and has recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the other CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating to the
Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution, the CEQA
Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 and
the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 321 for
the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted; and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-
06002 on the Property does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 is an
allowable use within the "PTMU " Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone under subsection
.060 of Section 18.20.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone)
of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the
"PTMU" Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone; and
- 9 - PC2019-***
2. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 would not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 will continue to further
the vision of the Platinum Triangle by contributing to a an overall urban design framework
ensuring that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with
the character of the area in which they are located; and
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety because the site will accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and circulation
without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Additionally, The plans indicate
proposed landscaping between the patios and the sidewalk as required by Code; and
4. The traffic generated by Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 will not impose
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area because the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets will not be increased
beyond what was analyzed and approved in FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda and what was approved
in the Existing Entitlements; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and
safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002
would further the objectives of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, subject to
compliance with the conditions contained herein.
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 presentation, 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, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, Addendum No. 4, the
other CEQA Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends
that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, in the form presented at
the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of
(1) Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
- 10 - PC2019-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth in a separate resolution of this Planning Commission adopted relating
to the proposed Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any
such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of
any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall
be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 29, 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 May 29, 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 29th day of May, 2019.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-11- PC2019-***
-12- PC2019-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06002
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO GRADING PLAN APPROVAL
1 Condition Numbers 35 and 36 of PC2015-069 for the original approval of
the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
2 The developer/owner 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
3 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
5 Prepare and submit a final drainage 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
Division
6 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
7 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
Division
8 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
Division
-13- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
9 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review
and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of
Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant
Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of pollutants during the
long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could
affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define
Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable) best
management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program
to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the
defined BMPs. Submit three (3) copies and a plan checking deposit to the
Public Works/Development Services for consideration and approval.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall
address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069 for
the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this
permit.
Various City Departments
12 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
13 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
14 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
15 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
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-14- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water
Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector.
16 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as
well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water
services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and
permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
17 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
18 The developer/owner 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
19 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water
Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and
maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system
improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance
with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
20 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering
Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by
the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with
the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-15- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
21 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for recycled water system
requirements and specific water conservation measures to be incorporated
into the building and landscape construction plans.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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
24 A Parking Management Plan detailing the use of the on-street parking for
the project shall be submitted for review by the Traffic and Transportation
Manager. Building permits may not be issued until the Parking
Management Plan has been approved.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
25 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
Division
26 The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 5-ft public
sidewalk easement across A-Drive at Union Street.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
27 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
Division
-16- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
28 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance complies with the
State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AV
1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
29 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 The Developer shall submit an abandonment application for Meridian
Street, Park Street, Metro Drive and portions of Union Street and Westside
drive to the City for review and approval. Limits as determined by the City
Engineer shall be finalized during the abandonment process. The City will
reserve a public utility, pedestrian and vehicle access easement across the
abandoned streets.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 All onsite drives shall be private, owned and maintained by the Home
Owner’s Association. A solid waste and emergency vehicle access
easement shall be dedicated across the private drives.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 On-site Sewer and Storm Drain shall be private, owned and maintained by
the Home Owner’s Association.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
33 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City Departments
34 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
35 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
36 Owner 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
-17- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
37 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected
and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building and zoning
inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
38 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be
paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
39 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 Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
40 Condition Numbers 100 and 101 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Fire Department
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
41 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT
42 Condition Numbers 106 through 109 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
43 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on
building plans.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
44 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
45 A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be filed with CR&R’s for project. Public Works,
Streets and Sanitation
-18- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
46 Approval from the City Council is required to vacate the public streets and
finalize the privatization of these streets as depicted in the Final Site Plan
exhibits.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
GENERAL
47 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City Departments
48 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan for
the A-Town Development shall apply to this Conditional Use Permit
approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
49 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
50 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.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
51 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private
alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
52 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter,
Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
54 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those
identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified in the
measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of approval by
reference.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
55 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
-19- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
56 The developer shall pay all applicable fees as required by the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
57 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying and
holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council
from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing
individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related decision, or
the adoption of any environmental documents which relates to the approval
of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall include, but is not
limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert
witness fees that may be awarded to the prevailing party, and costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of or in
connection with the approval of the application or related decision, whether
or not there is concurrent, or passive negligence on the part of the City, its
agents, officers, council members, employees, boards, commissions and
their members and the City Council. The property owner/developer shall
have the right to select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to
approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal
counsel providing the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the
City for any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the
course of the defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City
Council's adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
CANDELA
LIGHTING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CIVIL SHEET INDEXC-1 SITE PLANC-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-3 PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLANC-4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANC-5 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
COVER SHEET
LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEXL-1 CONCEPTUAL OVERALL PLANL-2 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT PLANSL-3 RECREATION/LEISURE PLANL-4 IRRIGATION PLANL-5 SITE MATERIALSL-6 LINEAR PARK CONCEPT PLAN
ARCHITECTURE SHEET INDEXA-1 FLOOR PLANS - FIRST FLOORA-2 FLOOR PLANS - SECOND FLOORA-3 FLOOR PLANS - THIRD FLOOR A-4 ROOF PLAN - AA-5 ROOF PLAN - BA-6 ROOF PLAN - CA-7 UNIT PLANS - UNIT 1A-8 UNIT PLANS - UNIT 2A-9 UNIT PLANS - UNIT 3A-10 UNIT PLANS - UNIT 4A-11 SECTION A-A A-12 FRONT ELEVATION - A A-13 FRONT ELEVATION - CA-14 FRONT ELEVATION - BA-15 ELEVATIONS - AA-16 ELEVATIONS - BA-17 ELEVATIONS - CA-18 3D VIEWA-19 3D VIEWA-20 SOLAR STUDYA-21 SOLAR STUDYA-22 COLOR CHARTA-23 COLOR & MATERIALS
LIGHTING SHEET INDEXEP-10 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLANEP-20 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER: 17046.02 02/04/2019
FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
A-TOWN PARCEL G
ANAHEIM, CA
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
GENE AUTRY
W
A
Y
MERIDIAN STR
E
E
T
UNION STREET
"A" DRIVE "C" DRIVE"D" DRIVE"B" DRIVE MBMB (PRIVATE STREET)(PUBLIC STREET)
(PRIVATE STREET)
UNION STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
-
C
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
-
D
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
6
2
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
-
2
1
3
'
8
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
1
3
'
8
'
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
5
'
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
1
3
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
3
'
1
6
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
/
W
R
/
W
1
4
.
5
'
3
5
'
3
5
'
1
4
.
5
'
8
6
'
1
1
5
'
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
M
e
d
i
a
n
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
6
4
'
4
1
'
1
0
'
3
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
4
-
4
1
3
'
1
3
'
1
8
'
P
a
r
k
S
i
t
e
5
'
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
2
3
'
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
0
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
r
e
e
s
i
n
t
r
e
e
g
r
a
t
e
s
9
0
°
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
5
'
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
n
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
r
e
a
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
-
1
6
3
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
1
9
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
2
'
R
/
W
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
3
-
3
3
2
'
1
9
'
1
3
'
R
/
W
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
2
'
1
'
1
0
'
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
G
-
G
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
-
H
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
-
F
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
-
E
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
-
I
N
.
T
.
S
.
C
-
1
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
G
L
O
T
6
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
I
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
M
B
GENE AUTR
Y
W
A
Y
MERIDIAN STR
E
E
T
UNION STREET
"A" DRIVE "C" DRIVE
"D" DRIVE
"B" DRIVE MBMB (PRIVATE STREET)(PUBLIC STREET
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
UNION STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
-
C
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
-
E
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
-
D
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
6
2
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
-
2
1
3
'
8
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
1
3
'
8
'
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
5
'
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
1
3
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
3
'
1
6
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
/
W
R
/
W
1
4
.
5
'
3
5
'
3
5
'
1
4
.
5
'
8
6
'
1
1
5
'
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
M
e
d
i
a
n
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
6
4
'
4
1
'
1
0
'
3
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
4
-
4
1
3
'
1
3
'
1
8
'
P
a
r
k
S
i
t
e
5
'
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
2
3
'
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
0
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
r
e
e
s
i
n
t
r
e
e
g
r
a
t
e
s
9
0
°
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
5
'
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
n
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
a
r
e
a
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
-
1
6
3
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
1
9
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
2
'
R
/
W
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
3
-
3
3
2
'
1
9
'
1
3
'
R
/
W
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
T
r
e
e
w
e
l
l
s
2
'
1
'
1
0
'
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
G
-
G
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
-
H
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
-
F
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
-
I
N
.
T
.
S
.
C
-
2
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
G
L
O
T
6
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
I
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
M
B
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UNION STREET
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"B" DRIVE
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
UNION STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
3
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
G
L
O
T
6
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
W
E
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
M
B
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UNION STREET
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"B" DRIVE
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
UNION STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
4
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
G
L
O
T
6
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
O
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
M
B
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UNION STREET
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"B" DRIVE
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
UNION STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
5
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
G
L
O
T
6
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
F
I
R
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
P
L
A
N
PROPOSED TREE LEGENDPROPOSED PLANT LEGEND
KEYMAP
MERIDIAN STREET
GENE AUTRY WAY
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEGEND
Decorative pavers at vehicular entry
Line of sight triangle per City of Anaheim
Engineering Standard Detail 115-B (low
groundcover planting this area not to
exceed 24” height)
Rec Center (Refer to enlargement sheet L-2)
Trash and bulky item enclosure
Private patio at ground level end unit
Clipped hedge at block ends
Future Linear Park (Aloe Promenade) per
separate submittal. Park to be
developed in concurrence with residential
parcels. (Refer to Sheet L-6)
Streetscape per A-Town Street
Improvement Plans. Not a part of this
submittal.
Typical building entry with stoop condition
(Refer to enlargement sheet L-2)
Special paving at building entry typical
(modular pavers and enhanced concrete)
5
9
10
4
8
3
6
7
2
1
PROPOSED PLANTING LEGEND
“C” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
7’
50
’
-
0
”
15
’
7
7
7
4
3
1
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
66
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
A. All above ground utility equipment will
be located outside of required setbacks
and screened from view in accordance with
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.36:160
B. Prior to the last final building and zoning
inspection for Development Area G or H,
whichever is later, the Public Linear Park
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Services.
C. No decorative concrete or pavers shall be
allowed in the right of way.
D. No private improvements or building
structures including but not limited to porches,
decks, balconies, stairs/steps, handrails,
landings, building eaves or any other private
improvements shall encroach onto the future
Linear Park or the public right of way.
NOTES
Mi
n
.
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-1
CONCEPTUAL OVERALL PLAN - PARCEL G
Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
GENE AUTRY WAY
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
KEYMAP
LEGEND
ENTRY ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1”=10’-0”
REC CENTER ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1”=10’-0”
LEGEND
Private patio
Private patio wall (top of wall = 36” max)
Right of Way
Building Setback
Building entry walkway, stairs and planter walls (top of wall = 36” max)
Special paving at building entry typical (modular concrete pavers and
enhanved color conctete)
Ramp with handrails (8.33% max slope)
60” x 60” top of ramp landing
72” x 60” bottom of ramp landing
Manuevering clearance at lobby doors
Exterior area for assisted rescue (per 2016 CBC Section 1009.7)
On grade planting area
Raised planting area
Off-site streetscape per A-town street improvement plans
Rec Area building with restrooms, showers, pool/spa equipment room and
package room
Overhead shade structure with outdoor furniture
Fire pit and seating area
Dining area with BBQ counter and tables
Secondary pool area entry with overhead trellis
Swimming pool (50’x22’, 1100 sf)
Spa (22’x9’, 198 sf)
Chaise lounges
Masonry backdrop wall at spa
Pool enclosure fence
Trash and bulky item enclosure
10
11
12
13
14
10 5
5
9
9 4
4
8
8 3
3
11 6
6
7
7 2
2
11
9
11
10 123455710111213146891234
5
2
6
8
7
1
1
10
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“A” DRIVE UNION STREET
48
”
SCALE: 3/16”=1’-0”
60
”
72”
12
”
12”
12”
24
”
48
”
Ma
n
u
e
v
e
r
i
n
g
Cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
To
p
S
t
e
p
Ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Bo
t
t
o
m
S
t
e
p
Ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
La
n
d
i
n
g
Ramp
Landing
Right of WayPUBLIC
PRIVATE
Ramp Handrail
Extension
Ramp Handrail Extension
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-2
CONCEPTUAL REC CENTER ENLARGMENT PLAN - PARCEL G
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-3
KEYMAP
Limit of Work Line Limit of Work Line Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN STREET
GENE AUTRY WAY GENE AUTRY WAY GENE AUTRY WAY
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
RECREATION-LEISURE AREA SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA: 45,319 SQ.FT.
LEGEND
Common Recreation Area
Private Ground Floor Patio Areas
Private Balcony Areas
Other Landscaped Recreation-Leisure Areas
(Minimum 10-foot width)
Common Recreation Area 8,537 sq.ft.
Private Ground Floor Patio Areas 4,138 sq.ft.
Private Balcony Areas (2nd and 3rd floors)13,948 sq.ft.
Other Landscape Recration-Leisure Areas 18,696 sq.ft.
“C” DRIVE
“C” DRIVE “C” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE “A” DRIVE
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
RECREATION-LEISURE PLAN - PARCEL G
72
’
-
1
”
120’-3”
Rec Area
8537 sq.ft.
GROUND LEVEL (SCALE: 1”=30’)2ND FLOOR (SCALE: 1”=50’)3RD FLOOR (SCALE: 1”=50’)
KEYMAP
Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
GENE AUTRY WAY
UN
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION NARRATIVE – PARCEL G – A-TOWN
THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION DESIGN INCLUDES SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WATER
RESOURCES AS FOLLOWS:
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE RECYCLED WATER, PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THE LANDSCAPE IS DIVIDED INTO IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WITH DIFFERING WATER REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON THE PLANT MATERIAL, SLOPE, SOLAR ORIENTATION AND IRRIGATION APPLICATION TYPE.
NO TURF GRASS HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO CONSERVE WATER.
SHRUB AND GROUND COVERS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY IN-LINE
EMITTER DRIP TUBING WITH A UNIFORM SPACING OF EMITTERS AND TUBING
SPACING, INSTALLED ON GRADE BELOW THE MULCH SURFACE. THE DRIP SYSTEMS
ARE SERVED BY VALVES EQUIPPED WITH BASKET FILTERS AND PRESSURE
REGULATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE IRRIGATION: TREES LARGER THAN 24” BOX SIZEWILL RECEIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION FROM SEPARATE VALVE(S) UTILIZING HIGH EFFICIENCY
SQUARE MICRO SPRAY NOZZLES. TREES SMALLER THAT 24” SIZE WILL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL POINT SOURCE EMITTERS FROM THE ADJACENT DRIP TUBING.
THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION WILL INCLUDE A MASTER VALVE AND A FLOW SENSOR TO ALLOW THE
CONTROLLER TO DETECT AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF LATERAL OR PRESSURE
SUPPLY LINE PIPING BREAKS.
PLANTINGS WILL BE GROUPED BY THEIR WATER CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE LATEST WUCOLS IV
CLASSICATIONS.
THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WILL INCORPORATE SMART WATER APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY (SWAT)
THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST IRRIGATION RUM TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO INCORPORATE A RAIN SHUT OF DEVICE.
UTILIZING THESE COMPONENTS AND IRRIGATION METHODOLOGY THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED
WATER USE WILL MEET THE ALLOTMENT REQUIREMENT PER THE CURRENT CITY OF ANAHEIM WELO
ORDINANCE.
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Total MAWA = (Eto) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA in Sq.ft.)+(0.3xSLA in Sq.ft.)
Hydrozone:Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA
Landscaped Area 49.7 0.55 35,366 0.62 35,366 926,302.74recycled
water
Estimated Annual Water Use:
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE
Hydrozone:Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Low Water Use 49.7 0.2 0 0.62 0.0 0
Medium Water Use 49.7 0.5 34,068 0.62 0.8 648,007
High Water Use 49.7 0.7 0 0.62 0.0 0
High (Pool and Spa)49.7 1.0 1,298 0.62 1.0 39,997
Total EAWU:35,366 688,004
Landscape Irrigation Water Use
Project Name: Parcel G ‐ A‐Town
Date: May 5, 2019
IRRIGATION DATALEGEND
Shrubs and Groundcover
Pool/Spa
“C” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-4
IRRIGATION PLAN - PARCEL G
PAVING WALLS
PAINT
ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVING PATIO WALLS, PLANTER WALLS
BUILDING ENTRY WALLS
SPA BACKDROP WALL
SITE METAL WORK
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVING
PRODUCTION CONCRETE PAVING
PAVER SHAPE:
3”x12” Linear Concrete Paver
At Project Entry
At Building Entries
Railings, Shade Structures
PAVER SHAPE:
4”x30” Linear Concrete Paver
PAVER COLOR:
Victorian Blend
with Shotblast Finsh
PAVER COLOR:
Victorian Blend
with Shotblast Finish
PAVER LAYOUT:
Herringbone
PAVER LAYOUT:
Running Bond
CONCRETE COLOR*:
Winter Beige
Scofield #6063
* Concrete Paver Bands,
Ramps, Stairs and Secondary
Building Exit Walkways
CONCRETE FINISH:
Topcast
CONCRETE FINISH:
Topcast
CONCRETE COLOR:
Winter Beige
Scofield #6063
WALL BLOCK:
Glacier White
Split Face Finish
PAINT COLOR:
Urbane Bronze
SW 7048
STUCCO COLOR:
SW 7633
Taupe Tone
(Finish to Match Architecture)
CAP:
Glacier White
Shotblast Finish
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-5
SITE MATERIALS - PARCEL G
Water feature at park entry
Date palm grove with seating and
decomposed granite paving
Social spaces with seating, shade structures
and decomposed granite paving
Specimen tree
Date palm
Natural turf
Accessible synthetic turf play surfacing
Art / sculpture
Stackable concrete climbing blocks
Low wall with seating
Social seating area with enhanced concrete
paving
Bocce court with decomposed granite paving
Outdoor game table
Shade structure and seating
Park monument sign
Proposed reclaimed water line
Linear Park Area:25,656 sf
(0.59 acre)
GE
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
DEVELOPMENT
AREA ‘H’
DEVELOPMENT
AREA ‘G’
ME
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEGEND
PARK AREA
5
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
1
1516141211891058676432113
SE
C
T
I
O
N
-
A
ALOE PROMENADE AT A-TOWN
WEST EAST
41’-0”
41
’
-
0
”
15
’
-
0
”
PLPL
PL
PL
SECTION A - TYPICAL PROMENADE
1/4”=1’-0”
This sheet included for informational
purposes only. Aloe Promenade/Linear
Park concept plan is preliminary and
subject to review and approval by
City of Anaheim Community Services
Department.
NOTE:
KEYMAP
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19A-TOWN L-6
PARCEL G
A-1
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
UNIT 1 - FLAT
1,227 SF
1 BR , 1.5 BA
80 SF PORCH
1 CAR GARAGE
110 CU STORAGE
UNIT 1 - FLAT
1,227 SF
1 BR , 1.5 BA
80 SF PORCH
1 CAR GARAGE
110 CU STORAGEFIRST FLOOR
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
FLOOR PLANS
20’-6”10’-0”
10
’
-
0
”
20’-0”
20
’
-
0
”
20
’
-
0
”
20
’
-
0
”
39
’
-
6
”
PARCEL G
A-2
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
SECOND FLOOR
UNIT 4 - FLAT
1,673 SF
3 BR, 2 BA
80 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
160 CU STORAGE
UNIT 2 - FLAT
1,389 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
98 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
115 CU STORAGE
UNIT 3 - FLAT
1,599 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
139 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
150 CU STORAGE
UNIT 4 - FLAT
1,673 SF
3 BR, 2 BA
80 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
160 CU STORAGE
UNIT 2 - FLAT
1,389 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
98 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
115 CU STORAGE
UNIT 3 - FLAT
1,599 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
139 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
150 CU STORAGE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
FLOOR PLANS
PARCEL G
A-3
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
FLOOR PLANS
THIRD FLOOR
UNIT 4 - FLAT
1,673 SF
3 BR, 2 BA
80 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
160 CU STORAGE
UNIT 2 - FLAT
1,389 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
98 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
115 CU STORAGE
UNIT 3 - FLAT
1,599 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
139 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
150 CU STORAGE
UNIT 4 - FLAT
1,673 SF
3 BR, 2 BA
80 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
160 CU STORAGE
UNIT 2 - FLAT
1,389 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
98 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
115 CU STORAGE
UNIT 3 - FLAT
1,599 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
139 SF DECK
2 CAR GARAGE
150 CU STORAGE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-4
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ROOF PLAN - A
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-5
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ROOF PLAN -B
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-6
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ROOF PLAN -C
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-7
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
KEY MAP
UNIT 1 - FLAT
1,227 SF
1 BR +1.5 BA
80 SF PORCH
110 CU STORAGE
1 CAR GARAGE
NTS
UNIT PLANS
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-8
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
KEY MAP NTS
UNIT PLANS UNIT 2 - FLAT
1,389 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
98 SF DECK
115 CU STORAGE
2 CAR GARAGE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
15’-0”
7’
-
0
”
PARCEL G
A-9
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
KEY MAP NTS
UNIT 3 - FLAT
1,599 SF
2 BR, 2 BA
139 SF DECK
150 CU STORAGE
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT PLANS
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
20’-0”
7’
-
0
”
PARCEL G
A-10
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
KEY MAP NTS
UNIT 4 - FLAT
1,673 SF
3 BR, 2 BA
80 SF DECK
160 CU STORAGE
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT PLANS
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
11’-6”
7’
-
0
”
PARCEL G
A-11
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
SECTIONS
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
39
’
-
8
1
/
2
”
39
’
-
8
1
/
2
”
PARCEL G
A-12
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
FRONT ELEVATION - A
COLOR SCHEME 4
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
PARCEL G
A-13
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
FRONT ELEVATION - B
COLOR SCHEME 1
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
PARCEL G
A-14
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
FRONT ELEVATION - C
COLOR SCHEME 3
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
PARCEL G
A-15
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ELEVATIONS - A
COLOR SCHEME 4
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
PARCEL G
A-16
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ELEVATIONS - B
COLOR SCHEME 1
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDINGHORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
PARCEL G
A-17
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
ELEVATIONS - C
COLOR SCHEME 3
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDINGHORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
PARCEL G
A-18
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
3D VIEW
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
KEY MAP
PARCEL G
A-19
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
3D VIEW
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
KEY MAP
PARCEL G
A-20
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
SOLAR STUDY
N
E
S
W 5:55 AM6:03 PM
12:00 PM
March 21
N
E
S
W
4:43 AM7:05 PM
12:00 PM
June 22
SPRING EQUINOX SUMMER SOLSTICE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-21
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
SOLAR STUDY
N
E
S
W 5:40 AM5:51 PM
12:00 PM
September 21
N
E
S
W
6:55 AM4:46 PM
12:00 PM
December 22
FALL EQUINOX WINTER SOLSTICE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-22
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
COLOR CHART
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Aluminium Storefront Windows Sliding Door System Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Tin Lizzie Pure White Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Cityscape Pure White Urban Bronze
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PARCEL G
A-23
17046.02 02/04/2019
14 PLEX BUILDING COMPOSITE
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
CANDELA
LIGHTING
COLOR & MATERIALS
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOOR SYSTEM
ALUMINIUM
STOREFRONT WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
(1ST FLOOR)
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
(2ND & 3RD FLOORS)
SCHEME 1
SCHEME 2
SCHEME 3
SCHEME 4
ARCHITECTURAL FRAMES
ENHANCED ELEVATION C
ARCHITECTURAL FRAME
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
J
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
W
R
R
A
T
E
D
-
G
F
C
I
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
E
D
R
E
C
E
P
T
A
C
L
E
W
/
I
N
U
S
E
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
W
P
J
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
I
N
G
L
E
P
O
L
E
S
W
I
T
C
H
ELECTRICAL KEY NOTES
J
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T
LANDSCAPING18" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT)LOW VOLTAGE (>30V)LANDSCAPE LIGHTINGDIRECT BURIAL CABLE 6" MIN STREETS, HIGHWAYS,ROADS ALLEYS,DRIVEWAYS, ANDPARKING LOTS24" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT),RIGID METAL CONDUITAND DIRECT BURIAL CABLES RIGID METAL CONDUITOR INTERMEDIATEMETAL CONDUIT MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS2 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT INDICATES CIRCUIT NUMBER (TYPICAL)3 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT2 #12 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #12 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
B
O
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
R
B
P
1. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING CONDUCTORS TO BE # 12 THHN/THWN-2 CU IN 3/4" S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
4
0
P
V
C
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MINIMUM COVER PER NEC 300.5(A) (SEE THIS SH
E
E
T
)
2. UNDERGROUND PULL BOXES ARE TO BE SIZE 3-1/2. ADDITIONAL PULL BOXES
M
A
Y
B
E
N
E
E
D
E
D
T
H
A
N
CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO HELP IN PULLING THE CONDUCTORS D
U
R
I
N
G
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
T
H
E
COVER OF THE PULL BOXES ARE TO BE MARKED WITH "ELECTRIC".3. SPLICES AND TAPS SHALL BE MADE IN PULL BOXES OR POLE BASE HAND HOL
E
S
O
N
L
Y
.
4. REFER TO THE DRY UTILITY CONSULTANT PLANS OR SERVING UTILITY PLANS
T
O
C
O
N
F
I
R
M
T
H
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
LOCATION PRIOR TO BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK.5.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 3/16" MIN. PULL ROPE IN ALL EMP
T
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
O
R
S
L
E
E
V
E
S
.
6. UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, UNLESS LOCAL CODE
S
O
R
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONDUIT.7. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST NEVER HAVE A GENERAL LIGHTING FIX
T
U
R
E
(
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
,
P
O
L
E
LIGHT, BOLLARD, ETC.) WIRED AFTER AN ACCENT LIGHT SUCH THAT IF THE AC
C
E
N
T
L
I
G
H
T
W
A
S
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
OR DAMAGED IT WOULD AFFECT THE GENERAL LIGHTING FIXTURE'S POWER.8. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST FLIP THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TO OFF BE
F
O
R
E
A
N
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
O
R
REPLACEMENT OF AN ELECTRICAL FIXTURE, LAMP, DEVICE OR CONTROLLER.9. IF GATES FOR PEDESTRIANS AND/OR VEHICLES ARE TO BE INSTALLED; THE EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
TO COORDINATE WITH THE GATE CONTRACTOR(S) TO MAKE SURE ANY NECES
S
A
R
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
,
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
S
OR WIRING ARE TO BE INSTALLED OTHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLA
N
.
A
L
S
O
,
L
O
W
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
CONDUIT MAY ALSO BE NEEDED FOR ACCESS CONTROL. COORDINATE ON LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
FOR KNOX BOX, PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED.10. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SIMULTANEO
U
S
L
Y
C
H
A
R
G
E
A
L
L
DESIGNATED EV SPACES AT THE FULL RATED AMPERAGE OF THE EVSE. PLAN
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
UPON A 40-AMPERE MINIMUM BRANCH CIRCUIT. A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PER
M
I
T
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
11. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE
O
V
E
R
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E
DEVICE SPACE(S) RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING PURPOSES AS EV C
A
P
A
B
L
E
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE.
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
H
P
1
H
.
.
-
X
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
R
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
V
D
=
X
.
X
%
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
D
R
O
P
H..-X212 H..-X310 H..-X210
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
D
E
S
T
A
L
EXTERIOR SITE ELECTRICAL NOTES
A
2
1
1
W
.
L
E
D
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
(
1
0
L
E
D
s
)
T
Y
P
E
I
I
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
5
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
K
L
A
M
P
K
I
M
#
C
B
X
X
-
1
0
L
-
3
5
K
-
U
V
-
F
I
N
I
S
H
O
T
H
E
R
X
X
-
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
C
(
1
)
4
"
S
L
E
E
V
E
W
I
T
H
P
U
L
L
R
O
P
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
M
E
T
E
R
&
M
A
S
T
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
R
E
M
O
T
E
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
F
E
E
D
E
R
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
N
G
L
E
L
I
N
E
D
I
G
R
A
M
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
E
0
-
3
0
B
4
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
T
O
B
E
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
W
I
T
H
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
B
2
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
A
4
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
2
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
(
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
3
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
2
#
1
2
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
2
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
2
H
.
.
-
X
3
1
0
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
0
1
F
U
T
U
R
E
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
D
U
A
L
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
A
1
O
R
E
Q
U
A
L
3
5
0
0
°
K
.
W
I
T
H
S
O
L
I
D
T
O
P
A
N
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
N
S
B
O
T
T
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
1
2
W
.
L
E
D
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
-
(
1
2
0
0
L
U
M
E
N
M
I
N
.
)
T
O
B
E
A
T
O
R
A
B
O
V
E
+
7
'
-
0
"
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
O
C
C
U
R
A
T
E
V
E
R
Y
U
N
I
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
E
X
A
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
S
A
M
E
A
S
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
A
T
U
N
I
Q
U
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
I
D
E
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
1
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
4
1
.
3
0
.
8
0
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
7
0
.
4
1
.
3
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
5
1
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
1
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
8
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
8
1
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
7
1
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
3
1
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
6
1
.
4
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
7
1
.
1
0
.
5
0
.
4
2
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
3
2
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
7
0
.
7
2
.
2
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
3
1
.
8
1
.
3
0
.
9
2
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
9
1
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
9
1
.
4
0
.
5
2
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
7
1
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
0
2
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
6
1
.
9
1
.
1
0
.
6
2
.
1
1
.
1
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
5
1
.
1
0
.
9
0
.
4
1
.
0
1
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
4
1
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
2
0
.
3
1
.
1
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
2
1
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
5
1
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
3
0
.
5
0.31.70.30.40.4
0
.
4
1
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
3
1
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
3
0
.
7
1
.
0
A1
A
1
C
C
C
A
2
H
S
S
A
2
H
S
S
ANAHEIM, CA
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
|
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
2
7
2
0
1
C
a
l
l
e
J
u
a
n
i
t
a
D
a
n
a
P
o
i
n
t
,
C
A
9
2
6
2
4
P
h
.
9
4
9
.
2
0
1
.
1
3
3
3
c
a
n
d
e
l
a
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
L
E
N
N
A
R
2
5
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
A
L
I
S
O
V
I
E
J
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
6
5
6
C
L
I
E
N
T
:
S
T
A
M
P
:
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
A-TOWN
T
E
L
:
9
4
9
.
3
4
9
.
8
0
5
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
X
8
-
0
8
8
D
A
T
E
:
0
2
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
9
PARCEL G
1
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
E
P
-
1
0
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
P
-
2
0
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
J
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
W
R
R
A
T
E
D
-
G
F
C
I
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
E
D
R
E
C
E
P
T
A
C
L
E
W
/
I
N
U
S
E
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
W
P
J
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
I
N
G
L
E
P
O
L
E
S
W
I
T
C
H
ELECTRICAL KEY NOTES
J
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T
LANDSCAPING18" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT)LOW VOLTAGE (>30V)LANDSCAPE LIGHTINGDIRECT BURIAL CABLE 6" MIN STREETS, HIGHWAYS,ROADS ALLEYS,DRIVEWAYS, ANDPARKING LOTS24" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT),RIGID METAL CONDUITAND DIRECT BURIAL CABLES RIGID METAL CONDUITOR INTERMEDIATEMETAL CONDUIT MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS2 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT INDICATES CIRCUIT NUMBER (TYPICAL)3 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT2 #12 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #12 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
B
O
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
R
B
P
1. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING CONDUCTORS TO BE # 12 THHN/THWN-2 CU IN 3/4" S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
4
0
P
V
C
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MINIMUM COVER PER NEC 300.5(A) (SEE THIS SH
E
E
T
)
2. UNDERGROUND PULL BOXES ARE TO BE SIZE 3-1/2. ADDITIONAL PULL BOXES
M
A
Y
B
E
N
E
E
D
E
D
T
H
A
N
CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO HELP IN PULLING THE CONDUCTORS D
U
R
I
N
G
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
T
H
E
COVER OF THE PULL BOXES ARE TO BE MARKED WITH "ELECTRIC".3. SPLICES AND TAPS SHALL BE MADE IN PULL BOXES OR POLE BASE HAND HOL
E
S
O
N
L
Y
.
4. REFER TO THE DRY UTILITY CONSULTANT PLANS OR SERVING UTILITY PLANS
T
O
C
O
N
F
I
R
M
T
H
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
LOCATION PRIOR TO BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK.5. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 3/16" MIN. PULL ROPE IN ALL EMP
T
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
O
R
S
L
E
E
V
E
S
.
6.UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, UNLESS LOCAL CODE
S
O
R
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONDUIT.7. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST NEVER HAVE A GENERAL LIGHTING FIXT
U
R
E
(
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
,
P
O
L
E
LIGHT, BOLLARD, ETC.) WIRED AFTER AN ACCENT LIGHT SUCH THAT IF THE AC
C
E
N
T
L
I
G
H
T
W
A
S
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
OR DAMAGED IT WOULD AFFECT THE GENERAL LIGHTING FIXTURE'S POWER.8. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST FLIP THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TO OFF BE
F
O
R
E
A
N
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
O
R
REPLACEMENT OF AN ELECTRICAL FIXTURE, LAMP, DEVICE OR CONTROLLER.9. IF GATES FOR PEDESTRIANS AND/OR VEHICLES ARE TO BE INSTALLED; THE EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
TO COORDINATE WITH THE GATE CONTRACTOR(S) TO MAKE SURE ANY NECES
S
A
R
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
,
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
S
OR WIRING ARE TO BE INSTALLED OTHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLA
N
.
A
L
S
O
,
L
O
W
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
CONDUIT MAY ALSO BE NEEDED FOR ACCESS CONTROL. COORDINATE ON LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
FOR KNOX BOX, PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED.10. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SIMULTANEO
U
S
L
Y
C
H
A
R
G
E
A
L
L
DESIGNATED EV SPACES AT THE FULL RATED AMPERAGE OF THE EVSE. PLAN
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
UPON A 40-AMPERE MINIMUM BRANCH CIRCUIT. A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PER
M
I
T
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
11. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE
O
V
E
R
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E
DEVICE SPACE(S) RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING PURPOSES AS EV C
A
P
A
B
L
E
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE.
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
H
P
1
H
.
.
-
X
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
R
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
V
D
=
X
.
X
%
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
D
R
O
P
H..-X212 H..-X310 H..-X210
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
D
E
S
T
A
L
EXTERIOR SITE ELECTRICAL NOTES
A
2
1
1
W
.
L
E
D
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
(
1
0
L
E
D
s
)
T
Y
P
E
I
I
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
5
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
K
L
A
M
P
K
I
M
#
C
B
X
X
-
1
0
L
-
3
5
K
-
U
V
-
F
I
N
I
S
H
O
T
H
E
R
X
X
-
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
C
(
1
)
4
"
S
L
E
E
V
E
W
I
T
H
P
U
L
L
R
O
P
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
M
E
T
E
R
&
M
A
S
T
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
R
E
M
O
T
E
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
F
E
E
D
E
R
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
N
G
L
E
L
I
N
E
D
I
G
R
A
M
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
E
0
-
3
0
B
4
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
T
O
B
E
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
W
I
T
H
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
B
2
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
A
4
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
2
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
(
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
3
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
2
#
1
2
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
2
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
2
H
.
.
-
X
3
1
0
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
0
1
F
U
T
U
R
E
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
D
U
A
L
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
A
1
O
R
E
Q
U
A
L
3
5
0
0
°
K
.
W
I
T
H
S
O
L
I
D
T
O
P
A
N
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
N
S
B
O
T
T
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
1
2
W
.
L
E
D
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
-
(
1
2
0
0
L
U
M
E
N
M
I
N
.
)
T
O
B
E
A
T
O
R
A
B
O
V
E
+
7
'
-
0
"
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
O
C
C
U
R
A
T
E
V
E
R
Y
U
N
I
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
E
X
A
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
S
A
M
E
A
S
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
A
T
U
N
I
Q
U
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
I
D
E
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
7
0
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
5
1
.
1
0
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
4
0
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
6
0
.
4
1
.
0
0
.
6
0
.
4
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
4
1
.
0
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
8
1
.
3
0
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
7
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
4
1
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
4
1
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
3
1
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
3
1
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
3
1
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
3
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
9
1
.
0
1
.
5
1
.
7
1
.
9
1
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
9
0
.
9
1
.
4
1
.
5
1
.
7
1
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
8
0
.
5
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
8
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
8
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
8
1
.
0
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
1
0
.
9
0
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
9
0
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
4
1
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
6
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
4
0
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8
1
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
6
1
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
7
1
.
6
0
.
8
1
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
6
0
.
8
1
.
4
0
.
8
1
.
6
0
.
7
1
.
6
0.32.20.30.3
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
3
2
.
0
0
.
5
0
.
8
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
4
0
.
7
1
.
0
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
3
1
.
0
2
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
0
1
.
3
1
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
7
1
.
7
2
.
4
2
.
2
3
.
0
2
.
6
2
.
2
5
.
7
3
.
3
2
.
0
1
.
8
2
.
6
1
.
0
1
.
0
2
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
4
A1
A
1
C
A
2
A2
A
4
A2
A4
B
2
B4
C
HS
S
ANAHEIM, CA
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
|
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
2
7
2
0
1
C
a
l
l
e
J
u
a
n
i
t
a
D
a
n
a
P
o
i
n
t
,
C
A
9
2
6
2
4
P
h
.
9
4
9
.
2
0
1
.
1
3
3
3
c
a
n
d
e
l
a
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
L
E
N
N
A
R
2
5
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
A
L
I
S
O
V
I
E
J
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
6
5
6
C
L
I
E
N
T
:
S
T
A
M
P
:
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
A-TOWN
T
E
L
:
9
4
9
.
3
4
9
.
8
0
5
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
X
8
-
0
8
8
D
A
T
E
:
0
2
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
9
PARCEL G
1
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
E
P
-
2
0
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
P
-
1
0
7' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
1
0
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
4'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
10'
BUIL
D
I
N
G
SETB
A
C
K
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING SETBACK
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UNION
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
GRADE
1ST PLHT
2ND PLHT
3RD PLHT
LEVEL 3
T.O.F. ROOF
10'
BLDG.
SETBACK
INTERSECTION MERIDIAN
STREET AND UNION STREET
COLUMN
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
7' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
4'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
BUILDING SETBACKS EXHIBIT
(CORNER OF MERIDIAN ST. AND UNION ST.)
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
A-TOWN
7' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
1
0
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
4'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
7.5'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
10'
BUIL
D
I
N
G
SETB
A
C
K
3'
TO PATIO
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING SETBACK
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
UNION
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
GRADE
1ST PLHT
2ND PLHT
3RD PLHT
LEVEL 3
T.O.F. ROOF
10'
BLDG.
SETBACK
INTERSECTION MERIDIAN
STREET AND UNION STREET
COLUMN
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
7' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
4'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
3'
TO PATIO
7.5'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
BUILDING SETBACKS EXHIBIT
(CORNER OF MERIDIAN ST. AND UNION ST.)
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
A-TOWN
GE
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10'
BUI
L
D
I
N
G
SET
B
A
C
K
2.5'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
9.
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
5.3'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
GRADE
1ST PLHT
2ND PLHT
3RD PLHT
LEVEL 3
T.O.F. ROOF
9.5'
REQUIRED BLDG.
SETBACK
COLUMN
INTERSECTION BETWEEN
UNION STREET AND GENE AUTRY WAY
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
5' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
2.5'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
5.3'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
BUILDING SETBACKS EXHIBIT
(CORNER OF UNION ST. AND GENE AUTRY WAY)
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
A-TOWN
GE
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10'
BUI
L
D
I
N
G
SET
B
A
C
K
4.5'
TO PATIO
2.5'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
9.
5
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
2ND & 3RD FLOOR
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
5.3'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
GRADE
1ST PLHT
2ND PLHT
3RD PLHT
LEVEL 3
T.O.F. ROOF
9.5'
REQUIRED BLDG.
SETBACK
COLUMN
INTERSECTION BETWEEN
UNION STREET AND GENE AUTRY WAY
3' PERMITTED BLDG.
ENCROACHMENT
5' PERMITTED GR. FL. PATIO
ENCROACHMENT
5.3'
TO BLDG. COLUMN
4.5'
TO PATIO
ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTION
2.5'
TO 2ND & 3RD FL.
PROJECTION
BUILDING SETBACKS EXHIBIT
(CORNER OF UNION ST. AND GENE AUTRY WAY)
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
A-TOWN
2016000160063, O.R.
LLA No. LLA-0000739
Parcel 4
Linear Park(0.6 AC)
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
MERIDIAN
PARK STREET
STREET
KATELLA AVENUE
S
T
A
T
E
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
.
GENE AUTRY WAY
Public
Lot 1, TR 17703
Lot 2, TR 17703
Lot 3, TR 17703
Lot 5, TR 17703
Lot 4, TR 17703
Lot 7, TR 17703 Lot 6, TR 17703
Lot B, TR 17703
Public Park
(1.2 AC)
Lot A, TR 17703
P.
M
.
B
1
3
4
/
4
0
R.
S
.
B
.
1
9
/
1
1
R.S.B 30/26
PTN. OFPCL. 1
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
P.M.B 45/13PTN. OFPCL. 2
POR. PCL.BLOCK "A"P.M.B. 104/12
INST. NO.20020246230, O.R.
PCL. 10BLOCK "C"P.M.B. 104/12
PRIVATE WAY
05/08/2019
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
KATELLA AVENUE
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STOP SIGN
STREET LIGHT
STREET SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL CABINET
05/08/2019
KATELLA AVENUE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
STREET SIGN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FIRE HYDRANT
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
KATELLA AVENUE
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STREET SIGN
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
GENE AUTRY WAY
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE WAY
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
05/08/2019
GENE AUTRY WAY
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRACT
BOUNDARY
17703
CURB RAMP
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURE
STREET SIGN
STREET SIGN
05/08/2019
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net
May 1, 2019
Maria Korkosz
Project Manager So Cal Urban Division
Lennar
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Subject: A-Town Parking Management Plan
Dear Ms. Korkosz:
At your request, LSA has reviewed parking demand and supply for the A-Town Master Plan (project)
in Anaheim. In 2015, the City of Anaheim (City) approved the revised A-Town Master Plan and
entered into a Development Agreement with Lennar. At that time, the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use
Overlay Zone (Anaheim Municipal Code [AMC] Section 18.20.120) established residential parking
ratios that were different from AMC Section 18.42.030. Subsequent to approval of the A-Town
Master Plan and entering into the Development Agreement, the City has amended AMC Section
18.20.120, which now refers to AMC Section 18.42.030 for calculation of required residential
parking. However, the parking rates established at the time of approval of the A-Town Master Plan
apply to the subsequent final site plans for each development area (due to the Development
Agreement) and are attached to this report (Attachment A) for reference.
AMC Section 18.20.120.0104 states that “Parking located on a private or public street directly in
front of a use may be considered for parking credit, providing a parking management plan is
approved by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be limited to the use
that it is intended to serve.” The purpose of this letter is to provide a parking management plan
addressing how much street parking is needed to fulfill the parking requirement and how street
parking will be limited to the intended use.
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
The project consists of eight development areas (A through H) and two public parks (Aloe Greens
and Aloe Promenade). Development Area A has been constructed and is currently leasing. The
remaining development areas are in various stages of planning. Table A summarizes the planned
development in each development area and the arrangement for parking. As Table A shows, only
Development Areas F, G, and H contemplate the use of on-street parking to fulfill the parking
requirement for those development areas.
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 2
Table A: Development Area Summary
Development
Area Master Plan Density Final Site Plan
Density Parking Arrangement
On-Street Parking
used to Fulfill
Requirement?
A 392 to 403 DU 400 DU Structure No
B 165 to 281 DU and 21,000
to 25,000 sf commercial
165 to 281 DU and
21,000 to 25,000 sf
commercial
Structure No
C 160 to 272 DU and 17,000
to 25,000 sf commercial
160 to 272 DU and
17,000 to 25,000 sf
commercial
Structure No
D 140 to 217 DU 140 to 217 DU Structure No
E 62 to 217 DU 62 to 217 DU Structure No
F 70 to 132 DU 70 to 132 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
G 106 to 159 DU 154 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
H 90 to 99 DU 84 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
DU = dwelling units
sf = square feet
PARKING DEMAND
Parking demand can be calculated for some of the development areas that have final site plans.
Other development areas are still in planning stages where the quantity of parking demand is not
known, but the location of the parking being provided is known. Development Area A consists of 400
apartment dwelling units and has a parking requirement of 679 spaces. When the final site plans are
prepared for these Development Areas B, C, D, E, and F, parking demand will be determined using
the established residential parking rates based on the number of bedrooms per unit and the
commercial shopping center parking rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (sf) per the Anaheim
Municipal Code. All of the parking demand will be accommodated in the parking structures for
Development Areas B, C, D, and E. Development Area F will use a combination of individual garages,
on-site surface parking, and adjacent on-street parking to accommodate its parking demand.
The latest site plan for Development Area G indicates a total of 154 dwelling units comprising the
following:
• 22 one-bedroom units with one-car garages
• 88 two-bedroom units with two-car garages
• 44 three-bedroom units with two-car garages
The latest site plan for Development Area H indicates a total of 84 dwelling units, which consist of
the following:
• 56 three-bedroom units with two-car garages
• 28 four-bedroom units with two-car garages
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 3
Table B displays the parking demand for both Development Area G and Development Area H. As
Table B shows, Development Area G would require a total of 319 parking spaces and Development
Area H would require a total of 238 parking spaces.
Table B: Development Areas G and H Required Parking
Parking Rate Development Area G Development Area H
Units Required Parking Units Required Parking
Studio 1.25 0 0 0 0
1-bedroom 1.5 22 33 0 0
2-bedroom 2 88 176 0 0
3-bedroom 2.5 44 110 56 140
4-bedroom 3.5 0 0 28 98
Total 154 319 84 238
Public Park
A-Town includes a public park in the center of the community named Aloe Greens. A linear park
named Aloe Promenade is also within the community. Together, these public parks provide
approximately 1.8 acres. Users of the parks are anticipated to originate from within the Platinum
Triangle, predominantly from A-Town itself but also potentially from outside the A-Town
community. Users of the parks coming from within A-Town or from developments on the north side
of Katella Avenue could walk to the parks, but trips by car are also possible. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, Fourth Edition, provides parking demand data
based on observation of other city parks and identifies an average rate of 2.8 spaces per acre.
Therefore, the parking demand for this 1.8-acre park is anticipated to be 5 parking spaces
(i.e., 2.8 spaces/acre x 1.8 acres = 5.0 spaces).
Retail Commercial Uses
According to the Master Plan, Development Areas B and C may include up to 50,000 sf of retail/
commercial space. Based on the current preliminary plans, restaurants will comprise less than
40 percent of the total space. The Anaheim Municipal Code requires four spaces be provided per
1,000 sf of commercial shopping centers that contain 40 percent or less restaurant space. This
commercial parking demand will be provided in the off-street parking structures within each
development area.
PARKING SUPPLY
Parking is provided for the uses within A-Town in a combination of off-street parking areas and on-
street spaces.
As previously mentioned, Development Area A has been constructed. The parking structure at the
center of the development provides 718 parking spaces compared to the parking requirement for
679 parking spaces. It is not unusual for this to occur with structured parking, as it does not always
make sense to build a fraction of a parking level. Development Areas B, C, D, and E are planned to be
constructed with a central parking structure. When the final site plans are prepared for
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 4
Development Areas B, C, D, and E, it is intended that the parking structures on site would supply all
of the required parking.
The off-street parking supply in Development Area F is not known at this time; however, the final
site plan will be designed so that the required parking can be accommodated within the site and the
immediately adjacent on-street parallel parking spaces (estimated at 21 at this time but may
increase or decrease with the final site plan).
Development Area G will provide one-car garages for the 22 one-bedroom units and two-car
garages for the 132 two- and three-bedroom units. The final site plan for Development Area G
provides 286 parking spaces in residential garages and 22 surface parking spaces internal to the
development area for a total of 308 off-street parking spaces. Comparing the required parking of
319 spaces to the off-street parking supply reveals that 11 on-street parking spaces would be
required to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area G.
Development Area H will provide two-car garages for all 84 dwelling units. The final site plan for
Development Area H provides 168 parking spaces in residential garages and 46 surface parking
spaces internal to the development area for a total of 214 off-street parking spaces. Comparing the
required parking of 238 spaces to the off-street parking supply reveals that 24 on-street parking
spaces would be required to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area H.
Figure 1 displays on-street parking spaces throughout A-Town. As shown on Figure 1, three parking
areas totaling 58 parking spaces are near the parks (i.e., 23 spaces on the north side of Park Street,
29 spaces on the south side of Meridian Street, and 6 spaces on the west side of Market Street). An
additional 10 parking spaces are on Market Street adjacent to the ground floor commercial of
Development Area B. In total, this is 68 parking spaces adjacent to public serving uses (colored in
green on Figure 1).
Figure 1 displays, in blue, the 21 on-street parking spaces that may be used to fulfill the parking
requirement for Development Area F. The 11 on-street parking spaces used to fulfill the parking
requirement for Development Area G are shown along Union Street in red. The 24 on-street parking
spaces used to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area H are shown in purple. Figure 1
also displays 43 additional on-street parking spaces in yellow (near Development Areas A, B, and D)
that are a buffer if residential guests choose not to park in off-street parking areas or during periods
of particularly high demand (e.g., an event in the parks).
Out of a total anticipated 167 on-street parking spaces, approximately 56 would be needed to fulfill
parking requirements.
Parking Plan
Streets within A-Town will be privately owned and maintained. None of the on-street parking spaces
on these private streets will be unrestricted. The yellow and green spaces (as shown in Figure 1) will
be subject to a time limitation and a prohibition on overnight parking. Blue, red, and purple spaces
(i.e., the spaces needed to fulfill parking requirements) would be marked “Reserved,” assigned by
each Development Area’s homeowners’ association (HOA) as a resident parking space, and signed
that unauthorized vehicles could be towed. Within Development Area G, the 22 surface parking
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 5
spaces would be available to overnight guests of the development. Within Development Area H, 25
of the 46 surface parking spaces would be assigned to residents by the HOA and 21 of the surface
parking spaces would be available to overnight guests of the development.
This arrangement eases the burden of enforcement as drivers are less likely to park in a space
marked “Reserved” or within an HOA community where they are not a guest. Drivers are aware that
parking restrictions in both of these types of parking space are more likely to be enforced. Further,
the likelihood of mistakenly towing a vehicle is greatly reduced when the resident whose space it is
reports the offending vehicle.
Time limitations on the remainder of the on-street parking spaces may be constant throughout the
year, or may be longer to better accommodate resident guests but reduced during baseball games
or other large events at Angel Stadium. The time limitation would be set to discourage patrons of
the stadium from parking along streets within the community. An additional mechanism for
discouraging stadium parking could be to set the overnight parking prohibition to begin at
10:00 p.m., which is prior to the end of most baseball games. Setting the time limitations will require
the community to find out which restriction is most effective, which may vary over time. It should be
noted that the closest on-street parking spaces to the stadium would be the blue, red, and purple
spaces that would be marked “Reserved.”
PARKING DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The analysis provided above demonstrates that a sufficient number of parking spaces are provided
to accommodate the anticipated parking demand if vehicles are parked where they are anticipated
to park. This section provides techniques for reducing the number of vehicles competing for the
limited supply of parking spaces. This includes efficient use of the loading area and accurately priced
parking. The following section outlines the methods of ensuring that vehicles park in their
designated spaces.
Additional Use of Loading Area
Development Area G includes a 65-foot move-in loading area along Union Street. Development Area
G proposes for-sale residential units. The turnover of for-sale residential units is likely to occur less
frequently than rental units. Therefore, this Parking Management Plan includes an additional use of
the loading area for the purpose of managing parking demand.
Use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft has increased dramatically
in a short period of time. In 2014, TNCs provided a total of 190 million rides in the United States. By
2016, the number of rides had increased to 2.2 billion. As this market grows, evolves, and matures,
the availability of TNCs could reduce the number of cars needed by a household. To facilitate this
mobility option, thereby potentially reducing parking demand by residents and their guests, the
loading area along Union Street will be available for TNC drop-off and pickup when not fully
occupied by the loading or unloading of household goods.
Self-Storage
Innovation has also resulted in changes to the self-storage industry. While in the past the
transportation of items to and from a storage facility was the burden of the renter, many companies
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 6
now offer portable storage containers that are transported to and from the residence by the storage
company. Facilitating the off-site storage of bulky or excess items helps to preserve garage parking
spaces for use by automobiles. The HOA may determine (seasonally or permanently based on need)
to designate the loading areas and trash collection areas as delivery and pickup areas for portable
storage containers. On at least an annual basis, the HOA will provide a list of on-site self-storage and
portable storage container companies servicing the development. Attachment B provides a partial
list of companies currently serving Anaheim.
Parking Allocation
Garage parking spaces will be owned by the residential unit. Surface parking within the residential
communities and adjacent street parking will be owned by the HOAs. The HOAs will have the
authority to assign these parking spaces to specific residential units or designate them as unassigned
spaces open to residents or the guests of residents. The HOAs may establish a process for assigning
parking spaces that includes verification that the residential unit is using garage space to park
vehicles and a provision that the assigned overflow surface parking space could be forfeited if
garage space is not used for parking. Assuring that garage parking spaces are used first can manage
total parking demand (for example, by discouraging the use of garage space for storage of bulky or
excess items). Prevention of spillover parking demand through enforcement is discussed in the
following section.
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
The A-Town project is creating streets internal to the project site that will be privately owned and
maintained. Signage at each entrance to A-Town will inform drivers that streets are private and to
be used subject to restricted use. Residents of A-Town, guests of A-Town residents, and visitors to
the Aloe Greens and Aloe Promenade parks should be the only sources of demand for any parking
spaces within A-Town. However, as discussed above, A-Town is within walking distance of Angel
Stadium and, if no restrictions are placed on on-street parking within A-Town, these parking spaces
may be attractive to stadium visitors seeking to avoid parking fees. The City also has experienced
resident parking demand encroaching into guest parking areas. Ensuring the on-street parking
spaces are available to guests requires that residents and stadium visitors be prevented from
parking in green and yellow (as shown on Figure 1) on-street parking spaces.
Parking enforcement within the private streets will be the responsibility of the HOAs, and would
encompass two areas: on-site parking spaces, and parking on private streets. The Development Area
HOAs will have an active role in controlling off-street parking within their development area and the
assigned on-street spaces (i.e., blue, red, and purple spaces). This will include Parking Demand
Management as described above, ensuring garages are used for parking, and enforcing the
allocation of surface parking internal to the development. The Master HOA will be responsible for
regular patrols and citations of illegally parked vehicles on the private streets.
Garage Parking and Internal Parking Spaces
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for residential units within Development Areas
F, G, and H shall include specific limitations on the use of garages. These limitations will, at a
minimum, include:
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 7
• A requirement that residents shall use garages only for the parking of operable vehicles
• A restriction on the use of garages for temporary or permanent living space, regardless of the
number of vehicles the owner possesses
• A restriction on the use of garages for storage of items that would prevent the parking of the
number of vehicles for which the garage is designed
• A provision that garages are subject to inspection by the HOA
• A statement that the HOA may assign resident parking spaces and that the HOA has the
authority to enforce the proper use of the resident parking spaces by levying fines against
owners who fail to properly utilize their garages to house the allocated number of vehicles
• A restriction of resident parking in designated guest parking areas
• A provision that the HOA has the authority to establish time limitations on use of guest parking
spaces or to limit use of parking spaces to vehicles displaying parking passes issued by the HOA
or designee
• A provision that areas designated for trash collection not be used for parking during the times
posted in the trash collection area
• A requirement that each owner inform their family members and that lessees are informed of
the provisions of the CC&Rs, parking rules and restrictions, and enforcement authority
• A provision that the HOA has the right to enforce parking restrictions and garage parking
requirements through the assessment of fines on HOA members, subject to the HOAs rules, or
towing
• 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 internal parking, including
inspection of garages and towing
• A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs related to internal parking shall
be submitted for review to the City Engineer or designee and shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer or designee prior to the amendment being valid
On-Street Parking
The approximately 56 on-street parking spaces needed to fulfill the parking requirements of
Development Areas F (approximately 21 spaces, with the final number based on the final site plan),
G (11 spaces), and H (24 spaces) would be marked “Reserved” and signed that unauthorized vehicles
are subject to towing. If a resident sees an unauthorized vehicle parked in their assigned space, they
would have a vested interest in calling the HOA for enforcement of the parking restriction and
towing. The remaining 111 on-street parking spaces would have time limitations and a prohibition
on overnight parking. The Master HOA would have the ability to enforce the time limitation through
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Development Area A
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
C
Develop
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
B
Develo
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
H
G
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
F
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
E
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
D
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
Public Linear Park MARKET STREET
UNION STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVE
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
K
A
T
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
STATE COLLEGE BLVD.
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
LOADING
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
/
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(Medium D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(High Dens
i
t
y
/
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
,
Structur
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
(High Density, For-Rent,Structured Parking,LOADINGLOADINGAll Parking On-site)All Parki
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
LOADING
LOADING
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
A
-
T
O
W
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
P
-
1
D
R
A
F
T
P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN
M AY 2019
A-T OWN D EVELOPMENT
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx «05/01/19»
ATTACHMENT A
AMC SECTION 18.20.120 AT THE TIME OF MASTER PLAN APPROVAL
DR
A
F
T
6/1/2016 ALP
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning/chapter1820platinumtrianglemixeduseptmuo?f=templates$fn=altmainnf.htm$q=[field…1/2
18.20.120 PARKING, LOADING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS.
.010 Number of Parking Spaces.
.0101 Number of Spaces for Residential Uses. The following minimum parking requirements shall be used in determining
parking need:
Table 20I
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE
Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Per Unit
Studio 1.25 spaces
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces
2 bedroom 2.0 spaces
3 bedroom 2.5 spaces
4 bedroom 3.5 spaces
.0102 Number of Spaces for NonResidential Uses. The number of parking spaces for nonresidential uses shall be determined
by the type of use (use class) specified in Table 42A (NonResidential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and
Loading).
.0103 Number of Spaces for MixedUse Projects. Due to variations in parking demand and the needs of each project, vehicle
parking requirements, the demand for dropoff and pickup locations and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and
egress, shall be determined as part of the final site plan review process by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department
based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, as approved by the
Planning Services Division of the Planning Department and/or its designee. The parking demand study shall be prepared at the
property owner/developer’s expense and provided as part of the final site plan application.
.0104 OnStreet Parking. Parking located on a private or public street directly in front of a use may be considered for parking
credit; providing a parking management plan is approved by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be
limited to the use that it is intended to serve. Diagonal and perpendicular parking shall be in conformance with Chapter
18.20.120.040.
.0105 Tandem Parking. Tandem parking spaces of not more than two (2) vehicles deep shall be permitted provided that (i) such
tandem parking spaces are enclosed or covered parking spaces, and (ii) both spaces are assigned to the same designated dwelling
unit.
.0106 Valet Parking. Valet parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking, provided valet services are
provided for and managed by an onsite management company or homeowner’s association.
.0107 Dropoff and PickUp Locations. Dropoff and pickup locations shall be incorporated into the design of parking areas,
and the number, location and design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
.020 Designation of Parking for Residential and NonResidential Uses. Parking spaces specifically designated for nonresidential
and residential uses shall be marked by the use of posting, pavement markings, and/or physical separation. Parking design shall
incorporate separate entrances and exits, or a designated lane, for residents, so that residents are not waiting in line behind non
residential drivers.
.030 Vehicle Access. All vehicle access shall be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.
.0301 Primary Vehicle Access. Parcels located adjacent to connector or collector streets shall have their primary vehicle access
off of said streets.
.0302 Minimum Distance Between Driveways of Arterials. The minimum distance between adjacent driveways on the same
site or adjacent properties located along arterials shall be not less than three hundred and fifty (350) feet, except as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
.0303 Vehicular Access from Katella Avenue. When two or more parcels or lots located adjacent to Katella Avenue are
DR
A
F
T
6/1/2016 ALP
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning/chapter1820platinumtrianglemixeduseptmuo?f=templates$fn=altmainnf.htm$q=[field…2/2
considered as a single, integrated development, additional driveways may be permitted, subject to the Standard Driveway Detail
requirements of the Public Works Department.
.0304 Driveway Width Dimensions. Driveways shall be a minimum of twentyfour (24) feet wide, and a maximum of thirty
five (35) feet wide, in order to enhance the pedestrian experience. Wider widths may be allowed if pedestrian circulation is not
significantly compromised, subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic and Transportation Manager, based on sound engineering
practices.
.040 Streets. As provided in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, connector and collector streets and a Market Street will
be required within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The location of these streets shall be in conformance with the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer, based on an access and alignment study. Additional connector streets
may be required by the City Engineer, based on projected traffic volumes as determined by a traffic study.
.0401 The streets shall be designed to comply with the cross sections in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; provided
that the final width, including supplemental turn lanes if required, shall be determined, based on anticipated traffic volumes analyzed
as part of a project specific traffic impact study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
.0402 Trafficcalming and special street design features, such as enhanced paving and parkway tapers at intersections, are
permitted and encouraged, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
.0403 Diagonal and perpendicular parking may be permitted on Connector Streets subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
.050 Loading Areas. Offstreet loading spaces shall be provided as follows:
.0501 Nonresidential uses offstreet loading requirements shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.42.100 (Loading
Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading).
.0502 Residential Uses.
.01 Residential uses shall have one (1) offstreet loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units.
.02 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators.
.03 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access areas.
.04 Decorative paving, removable bollards and potted plants are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or
moving plazas.
.05 Loading spaces or moving plazas may be located on a local or connector street, with the approval of the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager. The adjacent parkway and setback landscape treatment shall be designed to allow for loading and
unloading.
(Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6101 § 13; April 22, 2008: Ord. 6103 § 1
(part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008: Ord. 6192 § 1 (part); November 9, 2010: Ord. 6213 §§ 1, 2; June 7,
2011: Ord. 6317 § 8; March 3, 2015: Ord. 6344, §§ 7 9; October 20, 2015.)DR
A
F
T
P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN
M AY 2019
A-T OWN D EVELOPMENT
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx «05/01/19»
ATTACHMENT B
PARTIAL LIST OF PORTABLE STORAGE COMPANIES SERVING ANAHEIM
Haulaway Storage
11292 Western Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Storage Valet
341 Bonnie Circle, Suite 101A
Corona, CA 92880
SMARTBOX of Los Angeles
19627 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 101
Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220
Box-n-Go Storage
Corporate Office
5934 East Slauson Avenue
Commerce, CA 90040
1-800-Pack-Rat
Clutter
www.clutter.com
(855) 689-6141
MI-BOX of Orange County
18262 Enterprise Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PODS
25392 Commercecenter Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
DR
A
F
T
2016000160063, O.R.
LLA No. LLA-0000739
Parcel 4
Linear Park
(0.6 AC)
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
MERIDIAN
PARK STREET
STREET
KATELLA AVENUE
S
T
A
T
E
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
.
GENE AUTRY WAY
Public
Lot 1, TR 17703
Lot 2, TR 17703
Lot 3, TR 17703
Lot 5, TR 17703
Lot 4, TR 17703
Lot 7, TR 17703
Lot 6, TR 17703
Lot B, TR 17703
Public Park
(1.2 AC)
Lot A, TR 17703
P.
M
.
B
1
3
4
/
4
0
R.
S
.
B
.
1
9
/
1
1
R.S.B 30/26
PTN. OF
PCL. 1
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
P.M.B 45/13
PTN. OF
PCL. 2
POR. PCL.
BLOCK "A"
P.M.B. 104/12
INST. NO.
20020246230, O.R.
PCL. 10
BLOCK "C"
P.M.B. 104/12
PRIVATE WAY
05/08/2019
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STOP SIGN
STREET LIGHT
STREET SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL CABINET
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
STREET SIGN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FIRE HYDRANT
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STREET SIGN
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
GENE AUTRY WAY
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE WAY
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
GENE AUTRY WAY
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRACT
BOUNDARY
17703
CURB RAMP
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURE
STREET SIGN
STREET SIGN
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
5
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339
AND ADDENDA
On October 26, 2010, the City Council City Council certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" (FSEIR No. 339) in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, and related zoning
reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the PTMU Overlay
Zone to allow up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Three addenda to EIR No. 339 have been subsequently approved in connection with the Katella
Avenue/I-5 undercrossing improvements and revisions to the Platinum Gateway and Platinum
Vista projects. These projects included changes to the maximum permitted development intensity,
which now permits up to 19,027 residential uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 has been prepared to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the proposed A-Town Development Area G Project were fully-disclosed by FSEIR No.
339 or if a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary for this project. The analysis in FSEIR
No. 339 included anticipated build-out of the previously-approved A-Town Metro Project. As more
thoroughly described in the Addendum, the proposed A-Town Project is considered to be a
refinement of the development assumptions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and will not require any
major revisions to the Final EIR.
FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved
in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the proposed A-
Town Project, are available on the City’s website at: http://www.anaheim.net/1075/Report-
Number-339.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
- 1-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN 2018-00004
SITE
ADDRESS: Northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street, Anaheim, CA
APN: 232-121-35
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural & Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the
Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
May 22, 2019
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Susan Kim, Principal Planner (714) 765-4958
Printed Name, Title Phone Number
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
- 2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is
made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than
Significant impacts”.
d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening
analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration (§ 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General
Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
- 3-
Project Setting
The approximate 5.3-acre project site (referred to as the “Project Site” or “Project Area” in this document), is
known as Development Area G of the A-Town Master Site Plan, and located at the northwest corner of Gene
Autry Way and Union Street. The project site is part of A-Town's Master Site Plan entitlements and is
allocated for residential development within the range of 106 to 159 total dwelling units (20-30 dwelling
units per acre). The existing land use consists of vacant mass graded pad. The property's surrounding land
uses consist of the future Aloe Promenade (A- Town Linear Park) to the west, Gene Autry Way with the
Jefferson Stadium Park development beyond to the south, Union Street with future A-Town Development
Area F and the George T. Hall office building beyond to the east and Meridian Street with the future A-
Town community park (Aloe Greens) beyond to the north.
Background
In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update
that established a new vision for the Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update
created new land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for existing,
largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. This General
Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which
at that time permitted up to 9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses.
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and the
PTMU Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum Triangle. Under these updated zoning
regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement between property owners and the
City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone. For projects over twelve acres, a
Master Site Plan may be approved in lieu of a Final Site Plan, as is the case with this development
application. A Master Site Plan typically identifies the development proposal in a broad scope, depicting
street layouts, development areas and infrastructure improvement areas. A Final Site Plan provides greater
detail including plans for the specific buildings, parking areas, landscaping and other improvements. In
order to implement a Master Site Plan, a developer is required to subsequently submit a Final Site Plan for
each building that is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332
(FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP and Zoning
Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum
Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of
commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of the related
actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC to construct the A-
Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential units; 150,000 square feet of
commercial uses; two public parks; and, a network of local streets. An addendum to FSEIR 332 was
prepared and approved as part of the A-Town Metro Project. On November 8, 2005, City Council approved
a Development Agreement for the A-Town Metro Project, which was recorded on December 13, 2005. On
December 16, 2008, City Council approved an amendment to the Development Agreement to allow
additional time to complete certain milestones. The amended Development Agreement was recorded on
February 23, 2009.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
(FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, PTMU
Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within
the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet
- 4-
of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum
development intensities to up to 17,501 residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in conjunction with its
approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone, and an amended and
restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan for the revised A-Town Metro
Project. This revised project permitted development of between 1,400 and 1.746 residential units, and
between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets
within the A-Town Metro Project area. The City Council also approved the Final Site Plan for the first
phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a 400-unit apartment project with a 6-story parking structure in
Development Area A.
The subject 43.1-acre A-Town site consists of the same property approved for the A-Town Metro Project.
The property is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates
this property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The property is surrounded by multi-family and commercial
uses to the north across Katella Avenue; industrial, office, residential and commercial uses to the east;
residential property to the south across Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. The subject
property is currently undeveloped but was “rough-graded” and improved with the majority of the
infrastructure for the previously approved A-Town Metro Project. Additionally, the first phase of the A-
Town development, Development Area A located to the east of the subject property, has been development
with 400 apartment units.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct the second phase of the A-Town development in Development Area G
with a 154-unit condominium project with a residential density of 29.1 dwelling units per net acre, consistent
with the development allocation of the A-Town Master Site Plan. Along with the 11 proposed residential
buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape walkways,
courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building
for the residents. Dwelling units will range in size from approximately 1,140 square feet to 1,648 square feet.
The proposed project consists of 154 dwelling units in 11 three-story buildings. Each building has 14 units
with four residential product types (four flats). The proposed unit mix consists of 22 one-bedroom flats, 88
two-bedroom flats, and 44 three-bedroom flats.
The project's modern architectural style is compatible with the surrounding environment and development,
while distinguishing the site with its own unique features to create a sense of place within the Platinum
Triangle. The elevation design for the project is sensitive to the pedestrian scale to help create a unique
integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity. Lastly, the building design
works to create a balance of landscape and architecture by providing sufficient planting space for a very
pleasant urban pedestrian experience along the street setback areas and internal common areas. Additionally,
the project design is consistent with the project proposed on Development Area H.
Each of the 11 buildings provides parking in 26 garage spaces, for a total of 286 garage spaces. The project
allocates each unit one to two garage spaces based on the units' bedroom counts. The residents and their
guests also have access to 22 additional parking spaces on-site and 11 on-street parking spaces along Union
Street. Collectively, the 286 garage spaces, 22-on-site spaces, and 11 on-street spaces supply 319 parking
spaces; Code requires 319 spaces for the proposed project.
Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
- 5-
This environmental document is a checklist to identify whether Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 (SEIR No. 339) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, adopted in October
2010 by the City of Anaheim (City) and its subsequent addenda, have adequately analyzed the potential
impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and that no further environmental
review is necessary.
SEIR No. 339 was prepared to address the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan
(PTIP) and discretionary approvals associated with the Approved Project: General Plan Amendment No.
2008‐00471, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), amendments to the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, Zoning Reclassification No. 2008‐00222, and the Platinum
Triangle Water Supply Assessment. SEIR No. 339 addressed the potential impacts associated with
aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing,
public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gas
emissions. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant and
unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Approved Project.
Eight Addenda have been previously prepared to address modifications to the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project for the project changes listed below:
Addendum 1—Katella Avenue/Interstate 5 Undercrossing Improvement Project (April 2012):
Widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with Interstate 5 (I‐5) between Anaheim Way and
Manchester Avenue and create a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel. Maintain
dual left‐turn pockets at both intersections. The Project Area spans approximately 1,000 feet along
Katella Avenue, with an area of disturbance encompassing approximately 1.95 acres.
Addendum 2—Platinum Gateway Project (December 2012): Develop a four‐story wrap‐style
residential building with 399 dwelling units, a five‐story parking structure, and a public park on
7.01 acres. Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to increase the total number of dwelling
units to 18,988 dwelling units; reduce the commercial square footage to 4,795,111 square feet (sf);
and reduce the office square footage to 14,131,103 sf. No change to institutional uses (1,500,000
sf).
Addendum 3—Platinum Vista Apartments Project (August 2015): Develop a five‐story wrap‐ style
residential apartment building with 389 units and a six‐story parking structure (including one
subterranean parking level). Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to allow up to 19,027
dwelling units, 4,735,111 sf of commercial uses, 14,131,103 sf of office uses, and 1,500,000 sf of
institutional uses
Addendum 4—Amended A‐Town Metro Master Site Plan (August 2015): Construct eight
neighborhood development areas ranging in size from 3.1 acres to 5.6 acres on the 43.2‐acre site.
Develop between 1,400 and 1,746 residential dwelling units, up to 50,000 sf of commercial/ retail
uses, and two public parks.
Addendum 5—Jefferson Stadium Park Project (June 2016): Develop a mixed‐use community with
1,079 residential apartments, 14,600 sf of retail uses, and a 1.11‐acre public park. Building 1 is a
five‐story wrap‐style building with 370 units; Building 2 is a five‐story wrap‐style building with
376 units; and Building 3 is a four‐story podium building with 333 units and 14,600 sf of retail
space. Amend the General Plan to relocate and combine two park sites into one park site. Amend
the PTMLUP to allow for 18,909 dwelling units, 4,909,682 sf of commercial uses, 14,340,522 sf of
office uses, and 1,500,000 sf of institutional uses.
- 6-
Addendum 6—LT Platinum Center Development Project (September 2016): Mixed‐use
development with 405 dwelling units, 433,000 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial uses, a
200‐room hotel, and 77,000 gsf of office uses. Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to
revise the district boundaries to change the LT Platinum Center site from the Gateway District to
the Stadium District. Reduce the maximum dwelling units to 17,348 units. Increase the maximum
commercial uses to 4,782,243 sf. Reduce the maximum office space to 9,180,747 sf. Remove the
designation of a public park from the site.
Addendum 7—Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard Improvements Project (March 2017):
Widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater
improvements; widen the west side of State College Boulevard between Gateway Office and
Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make
improvements to the east side of the intersection of State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way,
which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on
Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access to planned development areas.
Addendum 8 - The widening of Orangewood Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a
six‐lane divided primary arterial between State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57).
The project included an extension of the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of
State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit (via West Dupont Drive and private properties).
However, SEIR No. 339 did not specifically address the detailed features of the roadway
improvements, improvements to the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking lot, or an interim
condition for Orangewood Avenue that does not include the installation of landscaped medians and
a monument entry sign. Therefore, Addendum 8 was prepared to analyze these specific detailed
features.
- 7-
A-Town Infrastructure Development
- 8-
Development Area G Site Plan
- 9-
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic
expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 339 determined that the overall boundaries of the Platinum Triangle
do not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide undisturbed or unique vistas, and/or that are officially
recognized by a local, State, or federal agency.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no officially recognized local, State, or federal‐level scenic resources are located in the
Platinum Triangle. The only Officially Designated State Scenic Highway segment of highway located close to the Platinum
Triangle is State Route 91 (SR‐91) from State Route 55 (SR‐55) to east of the City limits. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
Platinum Triangle would not be easily visible from SR‐91 due to distance and obstructive sound walls. There are no scenic
resources located in the Platinum Triangle; therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly impact a scenic resource. In
addition, the Proposed Project would not include tall structures that would obscure views of scenic resources. Additionally,
the Proposed Project would not be visible from the Officially Designated Scenic Highway segment of SR‐91 due to
obstruction by nearby development and sound walls surrounding the highway. For these reasons, no impacts to scenic
resources would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings associated with the
proposed development in the Platinum Triangle, including the changes in residential and nonresidential land uses and
modifications to the existing circulation system. Findings in SEIR No. 339 confirmed that compliance with provisions of the
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) would result in the creation of individual projects that are compatible
with the existing and future land uses within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 discussed impacts related to shade and
shadows, including shade and shadows potentially generated by the medium‐ to high‐rise structures allowed in the Platinum
Triangle. The SEIR concluded that impacts to the visual character or quality of the Platinum Triangle would be less than
significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 1‐1, which required analysis of shade on properties
sensitive to shadows for individual projects proposed within the Platinum Triangle. Many iconic buildings and structures
exist in the area surrounding the Project Area that provide landmarks to orient residents and visitors and provide the City
with a visual image and aesthetic. Two examples provided in SEIR No. 339 include the large “A” outside Angel Stadium of
Anaheim and the Honda Center. The Proposed Project would not create barriers to viewing or obscure visibility of
prominent local landmarks from the Project Area.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts related to the creation of light and glare. The buildout of the area would introduce many
new sources of nighttime illumination related to buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, roadways, and parks. The
proposed development will consist of 11 multi-family residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units with a residential
density of 29.1 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Master Site Plan.
Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape
walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for
the residents. According to SEIR No.339, the light and glare impacts would be minimized through compliance with the
- 10-
PTMLUP. In addition, light fixtures would include shielding to minimize light and glare.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with scenic vistas would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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 §
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. SEIR No. 339 concluded that
the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on agricultural resources and no mitigation was necessary. The 2014
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the Project Area as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Additionally, there
are no active farming activities within the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect any Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance due to the extent of
urbanization in the area. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339, and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no areas zoned for agriculture exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity.
Additionally, no lands covered by existing Williamson Act contracts are located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339
concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. There are no areas zoned
for agriculture or covered under Williamson Act contracts within the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
not impact land zoned for agricultural use or covered by a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation is required. The
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss, conversion, or rezoning of forestland. The Platinum Triangle is
- 11-
substantially developed and is not suitable for forestry and/or timber resources. There is no zoning for forest land in the City
of Anaheim and no areas within the City classified as forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526. The City of Anaheim has no land zoned for forest or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict
with any existing zoning for forest or timberland and would not cause rezoning of any forest or timberland. No impacts to
forest or timberland would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Proposed Project would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss or conversion of forestland. However, the Platinum Triangle does
not support forestry and/or timber resources. The Project Site is highly urbanized and not zoned for forest or timberlands.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing forest or timberland and would not cause loss or conversion
of any forest or timberland. No impacts to forest land would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest/timberlands are present in the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339
determined that no areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or
surrounding vicinity. Additionally, no existing Williamson Act contracts cover land within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No.
339 concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. No areas zoned for
agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not impact agricultural practices or any agriculturally zoned lands within the Project Area and no
mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with scenic vistas would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
- 12-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses all of Orange County (County)
and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB regional emissions inventory is compiled
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG). SEIR No. 339 states that the Approved Project would result in overall increased trips and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) in the Platinum Triangle area due to increased density of development. Although there would be an increase in trips
and VMT locally, the Approved Project would provide a net benefit to the SCAG region because it creates mixed‐ use
residential development closer to employment centers. This decreases average trip length because employment, services, and
housing would all be located in close proximity to each other. This also reduces the need for the residents to travel long
distances for commercial and entertainment centers. The Adopted PTMLUP was determined to be consistent with SCAG’s
strategies to reduce VMT in the region and was determined to be consistent with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), which was applicable to the Approved Project. Therefore, the impacts relative to project consistency with the
AQMP are considered less than significant in SEIR No. 339.
SCAQMD has thresholds which are used to evaluate a project’s emissions and determine if there would be a potential
significant impact related to construction or operation of the project. SCAQMD suggests that lead agencies evaluate both
regional and localized impacts for the project. The City uses the thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as updated in 2015). SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the Approved
Project would potentially violate air quality standards or contribute to existing or future air quality violations. The
construction and operational activities associated with the Approved Project would result in a substantial increase in
short‐ and long‐term air pollutants. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9
to reduce the potential air quality impacts. The mitigation measures focus on improving the efficiency of vehicles and
require the use of materials in responsible ways to limit the release of pollutants that may violate existing air quality
standards for the Platinum Triangle area and the County during construction and operation of the Approved Project.
However, even with these mitigation measures, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the Approved Project would potentially result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standards (ozone [O3], particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10], and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in size [PM2.5]). SEIR No. 339 found that the construction and operational activities associated with the
Approved Project would create short‐ and long‐term pollutants exceeding the regional significance thresholds established by
SCAQMD, including PM10, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX)
from construction, and carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 from operations. SEIR No. 339 required the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 to reduce significant impacts as stated
above. Even with Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, however, the air quality impacts were
determined to be significant and unavoidable; therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the implementation of the Approved Project had the potential to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. During construction, projects within the Platinum Triangle would create temporary
emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 based on the ambient pollutant concentration of each pollutant and distance
to the nearest sensitive receptor. Although it is difficult to determine exact emissions for a broad‐based master plan, based
on the proximity of the development to existing and proposed residences and the magnitude of construction required for the
Approved Project, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from construction activities was
determined to be significant. In addition, during the operation of the Approved Project, sensitive land uses, including
residential and recreational uses, would be located near major pollutant sources, including Interstate 5 (I‐5) and State Route
57 (SR‐57). This would result in potentially significant air quality impacts from exposure of people to substantial
concentrations of toxic air pollutant contaminants. Even with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2,
2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐ 5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that the odors generated during construction would dissipate before reaching sensitive receptors.
An occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks on public roadways may result; however, SEIR
No. 339 concluded that these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the industrial land uses within the Platinum
Triangle would generally be non‐odorous. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, “Nuisance,” would safeguard the community
from any odors from food preparation in restaurants and the residential uses.
- 13-
SEIR No. 339 found that odor impacts from placement of new residential land uses near existing odor generators would be
less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2‐ 10, which requires odor assessment for projects that
would be located within 1,000 feet of an existing industrial facility.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new odor impacts would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is a built‐out environment with no natural resources and no native
biological resources reside within the area. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or
special‐ status species would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not
contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
- 14-
related to biological resources identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities would occur and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain wetlands. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no
impacts associated with federally protect wetlands would occur and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban
and developed and does not contain federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
necessary. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain areas associated with wildlife corridors or
nursery sites. SEIR No. 339 found no impacts associated with migratory wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites
would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Proposed Project would not expand the area of the Platinum Triangle or
be located outside the original Project Area. In addition, the Project Area does not provide suitable native wildlife nursery
habitat.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project was not subject to a tree preservation ordinance or other local
regulation protecting biological resources. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources would occur, and no mitigation was necessary.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not within a plan area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP); Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with an HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a plan area of an adopted
HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impacts to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or
other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on special‐status species would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide
Historic Preservation Plan.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.5?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
- 15-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any historical resources as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Platinum Triangle is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District and none of
the structures within the Platinum Triangle were identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony
Historic District Preservation Plan. No known historic archaeological sites within the Platinum Triangle were identified.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts would occur and no mitigation was necessary. Although the BBSP area has been
previously developed, because it is possible that previously unidentified archaeological artifacts could be present within the
area, each future project considered for approval within the BBSP area, by the City would be required to protect these
resources as required under the mitigation measures. The discovery of buried resources within the project site would not
contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to tribal cultural
resources would not be cumulatively considerable. SEIR No. 339 determined that no defined historical resources or
structures exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project Area. The Proposed Project would not impact new
locations with potential historical resources or structures beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, no impacts to
historical resources would occur and no mitigation is required
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any known archaeological resources. There are no
known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
Platinum Triangle has already been disturbed and the potential for any subsurface cultural resources is remote. SEIR No.
339 did not identify any impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, and no mitigation was required. SEIR
No. 339 determined that no identified archaeological resources exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project
Area. The Proposed Project would not impact new locations with the potential to contain archaeological resources beyond
those analyzed for the Approved Project. The Project Area has already been disturbed, and the potential for any subsurface
cultural resources to be discovered during construction is remote. Nonetheless, consistent with existing regulatory
requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Part 15064.5(f), and Public Resources Code
Section 20182, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find would immediately stop until a qualified
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of
the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending on the significance of the find, the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.
Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on historical resources or structures
would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
- 16-
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Map does not delineate any known earthquake faults within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with earthquake fault rupture would occur and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the Project
Area is not underlain by any known active faults not previously identified. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is
required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that development pursuant to the PTMLUP might expose occupants to impacts from earthquakes,
including strong seismic ground shaking. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with strong seismic ground
shaking were less than significant with compliance with building standards during final engineering of proposed projects
within the Platinum Triangle. As with all of Southern California, the Project Site has the potential for strong seismic
shaking. Design of the Proposed Project would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California Building
Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, seismic‐related impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less
than significant. The Platinum Triangle is not underlain by groundwater greater than 11.5 feet below the surface and would
have a low probability for liquefaction impacts. Because impacts related to seismic‐related ground failure were less than
significant, no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not within an area with liquefaction potential in the Safety
Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). In addition, groundwater was not
encountered during exploratory borings drilled to 21.5 feet below ground surface as part of the Geotechnical Report. Based
on the historical high groundwater level, groundwater in the vicinity of the Project Area varies from approximately 30 to 50
feet below ground surface. Therefore, there is a low probability for liquefaction impacts to occur and no mitigation is
required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any major slopes on or in the immediate vicinity and
concluded that no impacts associated with landslides would occur and no mitigation was necessary. There are no major
hillsides or slopes within the Project Area. The Project Area is not within an area with earthquake‐ induced landslide
potential in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). Therefore,
no impacts related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that soils in the Platinum Triangle have a slight erosion potential. Adherence to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Because impacts related to erosion were less than
significant, no mitigation was required. Soils in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project Area, have only a slight
- 17-
erosion potential. Construction of the Proposed Project would adhere to the requirements of the Construction General
Permit. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction best
management practices (BMPs) for erosion management. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and
implementation of construction BMPs would ensure that impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the geologic composition of the Platinum Triangle is relatively stable because the soil units
underlying the Platinum Triangle are generally medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of
gravel and infrequent seams of silt. By following the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the
recommendations contained in these site‐specific geotechnical studies, the soils would be stable for building and risks of
incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with a geologic unit or unstable soil were determined to be
less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project is located within the Platinum Triangle, which
consists of relatively stable soils. Project design and construction would comply with the requirements of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report. Compliance
with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this
reason, the impacts associated with soil instability would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
As identified in SEIR No. 339, the near‐surface soils within the Platinum Triangle area are generally medium‐dense, fine,
and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. The expansion potential for these
soils is considered low. Additionally, any design or construction for projects in the Platinum Triangle would adhere to the
California Building Code and the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby decreasing the risk associated with development on
expansive soils. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. The
Project Area is within the Platinum Triangle, which consists of medium‐dense, fine and fine‐to‐medium sand with low
expansion potential. Design of the Proposed Project would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California
Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code, as well as the recommendations contained in
the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks
of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. Therefore the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts over those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that projects within the Platinum Triangle would not utilize septic tanks or alternative sewer
systems. There would be no impact for soils supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems and no mitigation
was required. The Proposed Project would not add septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems to the Project
Area. Therefore, no impacts related to alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur and no mitigation is required.
The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts from earthquake faults would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
- 18-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would create a substantial increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from existing conditions. The SEIR identified mitigation measures for solid waste: 2‐3, 10‐18, 10‐19, 10‐20; transportation
and motor vehicles: 2‐5, 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐12, 9‐14; energy efficiency: 2‐6, 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐24; and water conservation and
efficiency: 10‐7, 10‐9, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14. These mitigation measures would reduce GHGs to the greatest extent feasible;
however, the Approved Project would still generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions when compared to existing
conditions. Therefore, the GHG emission generated by the PTMLUP were determined to be significant and unavoidable,
requiring the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant and unavoidable impacts
resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The proposed development will
consist of 11 multi-family residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units with a residential density of 29.1 dwelling
units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Master Site Plan. Along with the residential
buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape walkways, courtyards and a
recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for the residents.
SEIR No. 339 determined that full implementation of the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Scoping Plan measures
would reduce emissions produced by the Approved Project by 35 percent. Implementing these measures along with the
statewide GHG reduction measures for electricity producers, vehicles, fuel, and the cap‐and‐trade program would reduce the
project emissions consistent with the GHG 30 percent reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, as described in
the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in the Scoping Plan. SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved
Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
The proposed project would not substantially increase GHG emissions because they do not add additional capacity beyond
that addressed in SEIR No. 339. The Proposed Project would follow the same regulations and plan measures for GHG
reduction of at least 30 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts from GHG generation would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
- 19-
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) 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)?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 identified that many businesses that operate within the Platinum Triangle use various hazardous materials.
The Approved Project would continue to allow the use of hazardous materials in the operation of these businesses, as the
Anaheim General Plan designates the northern part of the Platinum Triangle for industrial land use. All businesses in the
area must seek permits for hazardous materials and maintain records of hazardous material storage, use, and disposal.
Implementation of the Approved Project would not result in a change in the frequency of use of hazardous materials in the
Platinum Triangle and would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation was required.
The Proposed Project is a residential project that would not contribute to additional hazardous material usage during
operation. During construction, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials typically associated with construction
activities would be routinely transported and used in the Project Area. These hazardous materials could include gasoline,
diesel fuel, lubricants, and other products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. The transport, use, and
handling of these materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with project construction. Although such materials may
be stored in the Project Area, any transport, use, and handling of these materials is expected to be limited to quantities and
concentrations required to operate and maintain equipment. Removal and disposal of any hazardous materials from the
Project Area during construction would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider in compliance with all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
SEIR No. 339 identified that development within the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the
environment through the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, existing federal and State
regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into
the environment. The impact was determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. The Proposed
Project is a residential development that would not increase the usage of hazardous materials during operation and would
therefore not increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts related to the
reasonably foreseeable upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that State and federal rules regulating the use and handling of hazardous materials would ensure
that users comply with permitting programs and restrict the use of unauthorized hazardous materials. The Approved Project
would not result in adverse effects to the school population because new hazardous materials would not be introduced into
the environment. SEIR No. 339 determined that hazardous waste impacts to schools were less than significant and no
mitigation was required. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 relied on the database record searches for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 321 in 1999 and FEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that had potential to
- 20-
pose environmental hazards inside the Platinum Triangle and nearby areas. Most of these properties were classified as
“closed” action status and required no further remediation, and some were undergoing remediation at the time of analysis.
Any identified hazardous materials would be handled in a manner consistent with State California Hazardous Substances
Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
In addition, property owners/developers would prepare a Phase I Site Assessment for the proposed project site. Any
properties with an “open” action status due to identified hazardous concerns would be required to address the hazardous
concern and obtain a “no‐further‐action” status from the applicable oversight agency. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
development of the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the release of
hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos
Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, no impacts related to airport land use plans would
occur and no mitigation was required. As identified in SEIR No. 339, the Project Area is not located within an airport land
use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore no safety hazard impacts related to an airport would occur and no
mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified two heliports located at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center and the North Net
Training Center. In addition, the Anaheim Police Department (APD) conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot
of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The flight paths for all of these sites are located away from the Platinum Triangle; therefore,
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would present a less than significant impact to the heliports and no
mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would not include any tall structures that could interfere with flight paths of
the nearby heliports. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airport safety hazards would occur and no mitigation is
required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the City’s emergency preparedness plan complied with State law and interfaced with other
cities and counties within Southern California. The City also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi‐agency responses
to disasters. SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project would intensify development densities in the area. However, new
development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. SEIR No. 339 concluded that these impacts would be
less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle contains no undeveloped wildland areas within its boundaries or in
adjacent areas. The Approved Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. Because no impacts related to wildlands would occur, no mitigation was required. The areas within
and adjacent to the Project Area are urban and developed. No wildland areas susceptible to fires exist in the Project Area or
adjacent areas. No impacts related to wildland fires would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts regarding significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase
from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 21-
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by
seiche or mudflow?
k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or
other outdoor work areas?
- 22-
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?
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
Area or surrounding areas?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface.
During grading and construction activities, there would be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small
quantities of pollutants into the stormwater runoff. However, SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project would comply
with current water quality regulations, including the City Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), as required by Mitigation Measure 3‐2. This would include preparation
of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, and a WQMP and implementation of construction and operational
BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
SEIR No. 339 found that the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle would result in additional
demands on groundwater supplies. To meet projected water demand, the City would upgrade the initial production rate of a
previously proposed new water well in the Platinum Triangle and would drill an additional new well at a location to be
determined. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of an additional groundwater well in Anaheim would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies due to the location of the new water well in relation to the Orange County Water
District (OCWD) Groundwater Basin. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less
than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially
increase the amount of impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the
same as under existing conditions. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and
the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) would ensure that property owners/developers would properly convey
and discharge runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because SEIR No. 339 determined that these
impacts were less than significant, no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially
increase the amount of impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the
same as under existing conditions. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and
the OCFCD would ensure that property owners/developers properly convey and discharge runoff as appropriate. Therefore,
SEIR No 339 determined that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General
Construction Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects are less than significant. Compliance with the
State General Construction Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that development would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff. Therefore, SEIR No. 339
concluded that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General
Construction Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects would be less than significant. SEIR No. 339
concluded that development would not create or contribute runoff water that would substantially degrade water quality.
Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood
- 23-
zone unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed.
Therefore, impacts related to the placement of housing within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all
aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts related to the placement of
structures within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all
aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts related to flooding were
determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that the topography within the Platinum Triangle is flat and not subject to mudflow. No water bodies
are located within the Platinum Triangle that could produce a seiche during a seismic event. Therefore, no impacts
associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation was required. Due to its inland
location, lack of nearby large water body, and relatively flat topography, there is no potential for seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow to affect the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would
occur and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts related to groundwater would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would increase the adopted development intensities and expand the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, which would not physically divide an established community by creating
physical or perceived barriers to movement within a community. The proposed project consist of 11 multi-family residential
buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units with a residential density of 29.1 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements will include landscape walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge
deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for the residents. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts
related to division of an established community would occur and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including those established
by the City and SCAG, to be less than significant. SEIR No. 339 also concluded that the Approved Project would be
inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 8.1 because high‐rise
residential towers proposed as part of the A‐Town Metro Project could potentially interview with an existing Southern
- 24-
California Gas Company (SCG) microwave tower. No feasible mitigation was available to minimize the potential conflict
with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function; therefore, impacts were concluded to be significant and
unavoidable. This potential impact required the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address
significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would not affect an HCP or an NCCP because the Platinum Triangle is
not a part of either of these plans. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts to HCPs or NCCPs would occur and
no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts conflicting with any applicable HCP or
NCCP would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no mineral resources were located in the Platinum Triangle. No loss of mineral resources
would occur, and no mitigation was required. The City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) does
not identify the Project Area as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within Mineral Resource Zone 2
(MRZ‐2). The Proposed Project would not result in impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the City of Anaheim General Plan does not identify the Platinum Triangle as a Regionally
Significant Aggregate Resource Area. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no loss of mineral resources would occur and no
mitigation was required. The Project Area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral
Resource Map) as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within MRZ‐2. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not result in impacts to locally important mineral resource recovery sites and no mitigation is required. The Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase
from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 25-
XII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project had potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of City of
Anaheim General Plan and Noise Ordinance standards. The noise would primarily be derived from vehicular traffic,
especially on Gene Autry Way from I‐5 to State College Boulevard and on State College Boulevard from Orange Avenue to
Gene Autry Drive. In addition, SEIR No. 339 found that noise‐sensitive residential uses may be exposed to mobile and
stationary‐source noise levels exceeding State and/or City standards. Further, building facades exposed to greater than 69
A‐weighted decibels (dBA) would need to be improved architecturally to achieve a 45 dBA community noise equivalent
interior noise level limit. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐2, 5‐3, 5‐4, 5‐5, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to
reduce noise impacts by requiring noise reduction improvements for residences and disclosure of abnormal noise levels prior
to approval of project construction, and restrictions on hours of operations for construction activities, as well as construction
equipment maintenance requirements. Even with these measures, the noise impacts were determined to be significant and
unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
The Proposed Project would require construction activities which would create temporarily increased noise levels for the
surrounding areas. Noise impacts during construction of the Proposed Project were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at
a programmatic level. According to the City’s Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from
the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction
noise from the City noise standards at the property line when construction occurs during these hours, construction noise
would have the potential to generate noise levels well above the existing ambient noise levels. The property owner/developer
would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to increased noise levels by
requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at certain times of the day and with proper operating procedures.
The Proposed Project does not include an expansion of the roadway improvements previously identified in SEIR No. 339.
The proposed development will consist of 11 multi-family residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units with a
residential density of 29.1 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Master Site
- 26-
Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape
walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for
the residents. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to generate additional traffic noise beyond what was assumed
in SEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measure 5‐1 in SEIR No. 339 would reduce impacts associated with operational noise
produced by the Proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10, any
improvements associated with the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would potentially create excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. The vibration and noise would be created by construction activities in the vicinity of
vibration‐sensitive land uses and could also impact any housing located near the Amtrak/Metrolink Orange County Line.
SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measure 5‐5 to reduce groundborne noise and vibration impacts from pile driving and
Mitigation Measure 5‐6 to reduce the impacts created by groundborne vibration and noise to vibration‐sensitive land uses in
close proximity to the Orange County Line. However, even with these mitigation measures, the impacts remained significant
and unavoidable and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase in the ambient traffic
noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 established mitigation measures to reduce the
impacts on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels created
by construction near existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10
to reduce the temporary impacts on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified. Construction activities
would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area. Noise impacts during construction of the
Proposed Project were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a programmatic level. According to the City’s Noise
Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction noise from the City noise standards at the property
line when construction occurs during these hours, construction noise would have the potential to generate noise levels well
above the existing ambient noise levels. The property owner/developer would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9,
and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to increased noise levels by requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at
certain times of the day and with proper operating procedures. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the
Proposed Project would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not located in an area with an airport land use plan. The people living
in the Platinum Triangle would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from air operations. SEIR No. 339 determined that
no impacts related to airport land use plans would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not located in a
zone that is regulated by an airport land use plan. The Proposed Project would not create additional exposure of people to
excessive air traffic noise. No impacts related to airport noise would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no private airstrips are located within the City; however, two heliports are located near the
Platinum Triangle. In addition, APD conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of Anaheim.
Although implementation of the Approved Project would place more people in the vicinity of heliport noise, the Approved
Project would not contribute to an increase in noise from these sources. SEIR No. 339 determined that the impact would be
less than significant, and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning excessive noise levels from
private airstrips would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339. No mitigation is applicable.
- 27-
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impact.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would directly induce population growth by allowing additional
residential development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional nonresidential development in the
Platinum Triangle. The proposed development will consist of 11 multi-family residential buildings for a total of 154
dwelling units with a residential density of 29.1 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of
the A-Town Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area
improvements will include landscape walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace,
barbeque and restroom building for the residents. However, SEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the Platinum Triangle
would result in a jobs/housing ratio more balanced when compared to the existing conditions in the area. No impacts were
identified, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not displace any units of housing. Therefore,
SEIR No. 339 determined that no impacts related to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would not displace any people and no construction of replacement
housing would be required. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to displacement of people would
occur and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning loss of existing housing
resources would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?
- 28-
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the Approved
Project would delay Anaheim Fire District’s (AFD) response time for first engine response, increase demand for other
services of the AFD, and require additional fire facilities. Additional property taxes would be collected from the new
residential projects in the Platinum Triangle, and these would be used to cover the additional staffing needs. In addition, the
Public Safety Impact Fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects within the
Platinum Triangle, which would provide funds for the construction of new fire facilities. SEIR No. 339 found impacts
associated with fire protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐1 and
7‐2, which require installation of fire sprinklers on new buildings and payment of impact fees as identified in the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the Approved
Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing by APD. SEIR No. 339 determined that a Public Safety
Impact Fee would assist with the generation of funds for facilities and equipment for police activities. Additionally, the
increase in property taxes collected from the new development would be expected to cover staffing needs for the law
enforcement. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with police protection facilities to be less than significant with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐3, 7‐4, 7‐5, 7‐6, and 7‐7, which require APD to review plans for new developments
and for property owners/developers to pay associated police fees.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that residential development within the Platinum Triangle would create approximately 4,018
additional elementary and middle school students in the Anaheim Elementary School District and approximately 1,549
additional high school students in the Anaheim Union High School District. The SEIR found that developer payment of
school fees levied by Anaheim City School District and Anaheim Union High School District would reduce potential
school‐ related impacts to a less than significant level. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with schools to be less than
significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 7‐8 and 7‐9, which require coordination with
schools and payment of school fees.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. As mentioned above, the proposed development will consist of 11 multi-
family residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units. Although common areas are proposed, along with landscaped
walkways, courtyards and a recreation center with a pool, spa, lounge deck, fireplace, barbeque and restroom building for
the residents, it would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater maintenance for park facilities. SEIR No.
339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, establishing recreational space
requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure that adequate recreational space would be
provided to support the population growth in the Platinum Triangle area. With compliance with this regulation and
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and construction
of park areas in adequate amounts for the development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Approved Project could potentially affect the library system in the local area. Increased
population would increase demand for these facilities and the services they provide. Mitigation Measure 7‐10 requires the
payment of developer fees to assist with providing additional materials and services at the libraries servicing the population
within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with library facilities to be less than significant with
the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7‐10.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning regional and neighborhood
parks would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
- 29-
XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater
maintenance efforts. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational
space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With compliance with this regulation along
with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and
construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than
significant.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater
maintenance efforts. The SEIR concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational
space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With compliance with this regulation along
with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and
construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than
significant.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning construction of recreational
facilities would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339. No mitigation measures from SEIR No. 339 are applicable.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
- 30-
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
those results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would conflict with the LOS for the roadway system within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 required Mitigation Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12,
9‐13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to
minimize the LOS impacts on roadway systems in the Platinum Triangle. Even with the incorporation of these mitigation
measures, impacts to the roadway system remained significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project had the potential to conflict with an applicable Congestion Management
Program (CMP), including LOS standards for designated roadways or highways, as well as intersections under California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction, that are identified in the CMP. SEIR No. 339 identified Mitigation
Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12, 9‐13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing
facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to minimize these impacts. Even with these mitigation
measures, the impacts related to increased traffic volumes on the roadway system and Caltrans intersections would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council when SEIR No.
339 was certified. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adopted the CMP for Orange County, which
provides a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions on major freeways, highways, and roadways
within the County. The Congestion Management Program Highway System (CMPHS) consists of the Orange County smart
street network plus the State highway system. There are no CMP intersections in the Project Area, and the four intersections
analyzed in the Traffic Study (State College Boulevard/Artisan Court, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, West
Dupont Drive/Orangewood Avenue, and Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue) are not CMP intersections. In addition, the
Proposed Project would implement roadway improvements identified in the PTIP and help alleviate traffic congestion
through expansion of the existing roadways. The Proposed Project would not impact CMP intersections and no mitigation is
required. The level of impact to CMP intersections would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there were two heliports within the vicinity of the Platinum Triangle. These include the North
Net Training Facility and University of California, Irvine Medical Center. Additionally, the APD utilizes the parking lot of
Anaheim Stadium for helicopter training exercises. Hazards from helicopter take‐off and landing activities could affect local
land uses, and the City seeks to limit the exposure of the public to these risks by minimizing the siting of incompatible land
uses surrounding existing heliports. The Approved Project would allow development of various land uses, including high
rise residential uses, in proximity to existing heliports. However, such developments would be reviewed by the Airport Land
- 31-
Use Commission to ensure in consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission’s Airport Environs Land Use Plan
guidelines. With compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan guidelines, SEIR No. 339 determined that impacts
related to air traffic patterns are less than significant. The Proposed Project includes the development of 11 multi-family
residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units, but it does not include tall structures that would obstruct or cause a
change in air traffic patterns or pose a safety risk to aircraft. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase air traffic
such that it would result in safety hazards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts related to air traffic
patterns and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other
hazardous design features. Future projects within the Platinum Triangle would be required to dedicate land, including
construction easements, for the ultimate arterial highway rights‐of‐way to maintain LOS and access to the Platinum Triangle
area (Mitigation Measure 9‐14). Construction of bus turnouts as recommended by OCTA would further alleviate safety
impacts due to design features (Mitigation Measure 9‐15). Therefore, SEIR No. 339 found the impacts related to the design
of hazardous project features to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 9‐14 and 9‐15.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the property owner/ developer and/or the City would design and improve vehicle access
within the Platinum Triangle in accordance with the requirements of the City to reduce any emergency access impacts from
buildout of the Platinum Triangle. Development projects would be reviewed and approved by the AFD prior to issuance of
building permits to ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided during all phases of construction.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with emergency access to be less than significant with implementation of existing
regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project is consistent with the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which was a part
of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy to reduce emissions and increase mobility. The PTMLUP includes design
standards for bus stops, pedestrian walkways, and the bicycle system to promote other forms of transportation within the
Platinum Triangle. Development of additional services includes the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
facility, which would provide a variety of alternative transportation options to the Platinum Triangle area. Therefore, SEIR
No. 339 concluded that the impacts associated with the Approved Project on alternative transportation facilities would be
less than significant. No mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning emergency access would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste
water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
- 32-
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 § 21151.9 and described in
Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information
Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to electricity?
i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to natural gas?
j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to telephone service?
k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to television
service/reception?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. With implementation of sewer
system improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment facilities, was anticipated to be adequate for
development associated with the Approved Project. Further, it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a
10‐year storm event would be low and would not create a significant impact. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with
wastewater treatment requirements to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1,
10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements and the addition of new water
facilities. With implementation of improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment facilities, was anticipated to
accommodate development associated with the Approved Project. Rule 15‐D of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates,
and Regulations specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected land use water demands
within Anaheim, including within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 determined that Water Rule 15‐D of the City’s
Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524C) would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve
the Platinum Triangle area. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with new or expanded water and wastewater treatment
facilities to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5,
10‐6, 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area
identified that the existing storm drainage system was deficient under the existing conditions in the Platinum Triangle at the
time the SEIR was prepared. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of storm drain facilities would occur in compliance
with engineering standards and regulations and would not result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts associated
with stormwater drainage facilities were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure
- 33-
10‐17 identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that based on the Water Supply Assessment for the Approved Project, surplus water would be
available through the 20‐year planning period. SEIR No. 339 impacts associated with water supplies were determined to be
less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13,
10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. After improvements, the sewer
system and sewer treatment facilities were anticipated to accommodate development associated with the Approved Project.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with wastewater treatment service to be less than significant with the incorporation
of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Platinum Triangle area and would be
the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the Platinum Triangle. The Approved Project would increase the
service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The SEIR concluded that
there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the anticipated solid waste
stream generated by implementation of the Approved Project. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with landfill capacity
to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would generate increased construction and
operational solid waste in the area. Each development project in the Platinum Triangle would be required to submit project
plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans
comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste
Management Program, as administered by the City of Anaheim. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with solid waste
statutes and regulations to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19,
and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would increase the electrical load on existing
facilities and would require both upgrades to the existing 12‐kilovolt distribution systems and construction of a new
electrical substation. In addition, plans for each project would be required to comply with the State energy efficiency
standards (CCR Title 24), as specified in Mitigation Measures 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐23, and 10‐24. SEIR No. 339 concluded that
with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts on electrical service would be less than significant. SEIR No. 339
concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would increase natural gas demand in the Platinum Triangle.
Buildout of the Platinum Triangle would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas transmission pipelines; placement of at least
two additional pressure‐limiting stations; and alteration of at least 3 miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase
capacity. With the necessary system upgrades and facility improvements, SCG would be able to service the Platinum
Triangle with natural gas. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service would occur.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with solid waste would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 34-
XIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have Impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of the environment related to biological and
cultural resources because the Platinum Triangle is already developed and approved for redevelopment. In addition, the
resulting increase in development intensities would not further degrade the quality of the environment. No impact related to
degradation of the quality of the environment would occur and no mitigation was required. As discussed and analyzed in this
document, the Proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the Proposed Project would not 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, or reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, as discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources,
the Project Area does not contain any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and no
impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would result in cumulatively considerable air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic
impacts. As a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council. As
discussed and analyzed in this document, the Proposed Project would not increase the severity or result in new impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the severity of a previous cumulative impact
or result in any new cumulative impacts not already analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would result in significant unavoidable air quality, land use, noise, traffic,
and GHG impacts. As a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because
of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
1
Scott Koehm
From:Madelyn <mdlynfx@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2019 2:58 PM
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing on May 29, 2019
Hello Scott,
My name is Madelyn and I’m a resident of Anaheim. I live at The Core apartment complex. I received a letter in the mail
about condos and townhomes that might be built on Gene Autry Way. I won’t be able to attend the hearing so I thought
I would email you.
I don’t think the buildings should be built if they are not up to code. I can hear my neighbors through all of my walls and
my building is up to code (I believe). I can’t imagine how much noise I would here from my neighbors if the condos were
located closer to each other than what’s required. Builders need to stop cramming residents into their complexes like
sardines—so that they can turn a profit.
There are already hundreds of apartment units located in Platinum Triangle. There’s brand new buildings sitting empty
right now because no one is renting. Anaheim residents don’t need more housing.
If new housing was built, it would be great if affordable housing was built to help out those who can’t afford $2,000 a
month for a studio apartment. The rent prices in Platinum Triangle are huge.
It would be great to see new shopping built in this area. Platinum Triangle residents drive 15 minutes to Orange to go to
Trader Joe’s or 15 minutes to Garden Grove to go to Costco. There is no easy access to grocery stores, convenient stores,
or pharmacies. Instead of new housing, it would be great to have a new shopping center in Platinum Triangle.
Thank you for your time,
Madelyn
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
N
E
W
C
O
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
D
E
N
C
E
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: MAY 29, 2019
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06003
LOCATION: The subject property is 4.49 acres, located at the northeast corner of
Gene Autry Way and Westside Drive (A-Town Development Area H).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is PT
Metro LLC represented by Maria Korkosz and the agent is Ted Frattone from
Hunsaker and Associates.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Site Plan to construct an
84-unit development located in 28 triplex townhome buildings in Development Area
H of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU)
Overlay Zone. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow buildings that are located closer to each other than the minimum
distance required by Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions, determining that the previously certified Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and associated
Addenda are the appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and
approving Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-
06003.
BACKGROUND: In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive
citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update that established a new vision for the
Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update created new
land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for
existing, largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and
commercial uses. This General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which at that time permitted up to
9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300 square
feet of commercial uses.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 2 of 9
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
and the PTMU Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum Triangle. Under these
updated zoning regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement between
property owners and the City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone.
For projects over twelve acres, a Master Site Plan may be approved in lieu of a Final Site Plan, as
is the case with this development application. A Master Site Plan typically identifies the
development proposal in a broad scope, depicting street layouts, development areas and
infrastructure improvement areas. A Final Site Plan provides greater detail including plans for the
specific buildings, parking areas, landscaping and other improvements. In order to implement a
Master Site Plan, a developer is required to subsequently submit a Final Site Plan for each building
that is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP and Zoning Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of
office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of
the related actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC
to construct the A-Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential
units; 150,000 square feet of commercial uses; two public parks; and, a network of local streets.
An addendum to FSEIR 332 was prepared and approved as part of that project. On November 8,
2005, City Council approved a Development Agreement for the project, which was recorded on
December 13, 2005. On December 16, 2008, City Council approved an amendment to the
Development Agreement to allow additional time to complete certain milestones. The amended
Development Agreement was recorded on February 23, 2009.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable
development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909
residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses;
and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR
No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum development intensities to up to 17,501
residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243 square feet of commercial uses;
and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay
Zone, and an amended and restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan
for the revised A-Town Metro Project. This revised project permitted development of between
1,400 and 1.746 residential units, and between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses,
two public parks, and a network of local streets within the A-Town Metro Project area. The City
Council also approved the Final Site Plan for the first phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a
400-unit apartment project with a 6-story parking structure in Development Area A.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 3 of 9
The 43.1-acre A-Town Metro Project site is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU
Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The
property is surrounded by multi-family and commercial uses to the north across Katella Avenue;
industrial, office, residential and commercial uses to the east; residential property to the south
across Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. The subject property is currently
undeveloped but was “rough-graded” and improved with the majority of the infrastructure for the
previously approved A-Town Metro Project. Additionally, the first phase of the A-Town
development, Development Area A located to the east of the subject property, has been
development with 400 apartment units.
A-Town Infrastructure Development
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct the third phase of the A-Town development in
Development Area H with 84 dwelling units in 28 triplex townhomes with a residential density of
18.8 dwelling units per net acre. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements will include landscape walkways, an open space area off Gene Autry
Way, and a recreation center. The recreation center will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered
patio with barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the residents. The units will range in
size from approximately 1,975 square feet to 2,295 square feet.
The project would consist of 28 triplex buildings. Each building would consist of three attached
townhome product types for 84 total dwelling units. The unit mix will consist of 56 3-bedroom
townhomes and 28 4-bedroom townhomes. The contemporary architectural style includes three
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 4 of 9
elevation types and the buildings would front on Westside Drive, Meridian Street and the Aloe
Promenade linear park to create an attractive and active street scene, which include entry stoops,
balconies, building articulation, architectural details, and varied rooflines and building materials.
The applicant is proposing buildings that do not meet the minimum building-to-building setbacks
required by the Code. The figure below highlights the locations of the reduced building separations
in red.
Development Area H Site Plan (Reduced Building Separations Shown in Red)
The PTMU Overlay Zone allows modifications to these setback requirements through the approval
of a CUP. Staff further describes and analyzes this request in the “Findings and Analysis” section
of this staff report.
The project's modern architectural style is compatible with the surrounding environment and
development, while distinguishing the site with its own unique features to create a sense of place
within the Platinum Triangle. The elevation design for the project is sensitive to the pedestrian
scale to help create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 5 of 9
activity. Lastly, the building design works to create a balance of landscape and architecture by
providing sufficient planting space for a very pleasant urban pedestrian experience along the street
setback areas and internal common areas. Additionally, the project design is consistent with the
project proposed on Development Area G.
Rendering at Gene Autry Drive and Westside Drive
The project's site design incorporates the following features to comply with the design standards
of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), the PTMU Overlay Zone and the A-
Town Master Site Plan and to provide a vibrant walkable community with high quality landscaping
and architecture:
The proposed project includes pedestrian walkways throughout the project site to connect
residents to Meridian Street, Westside Drive, and to the Aloe Promenade Park, as well as
to the other residential buildings, on-site open space areas, and recreation center.
Architectural features include raised stoop entrances and balconies fronting on perimeter
connector streets (Meridian Street and Westside Drive) and to the Aloe Promenade linear
park to activate the adjacent street parkways and park areas.
Common areas with landscaping and trees will provide shaded walkways and will create
visual interest as well as complement the building architecture.
A recreation center with pool, spa, sun deck and community building for the residents will
provide a focal amenity to enjoy active recreation and a space to host parties as well as
informal gatherings.
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 6 of 9
All units will have either a private balcony for private recreation and leisure space for the
residents.
Enhanced building corner elevations and landscaping at Gene Autry Way/Westside Drive
and Meridian/Westside Drive intersections will provide focal points and create visual
interest for pedestrians.
Parking
Parking for the proposed project will comply with the Code requirements for that were in place at
the time the Council approved the Development Agreement for the A-Town Master Site Plan. The
City Council has subsequently adopted higher parking requirements for the Platinum Triangle that
are consistent with the parking requirements for multi-family housing throughout the City;
however, the City cannot apply the new requirements to the proposed project because the
Development Agreement “locks in” the Code requirements in place at the time of the approval of
the Development Agreement.
The proposed project will provide two garage spaces per unit. The residents and their guests also
have access to 46 additional parking spaces on-site and 24 on-street parking spaces along Westside
Drive and Meridian Street. Collectively, the 168 garage spaces, 46-on-site spaces, and 24 on-street
spaces supply 238 parking spaces; Code requires 238 spaces for the proposed project.
The PTMU Overlay Zone permits the use of on-street parking spaces to count toward meeting the
Code-required parking for residential uses subject to the approval of a Parking Management Plan
by the City’s Traffic and Transportation Manager. Additionally, in order for the City to count the
on-street parking spaces toward meeting the project’s parking requirement, the streets must be
private.
The interior streets of A-Town are public streets and California law does not allow the private use
of parking spaces on public streets. Therefore, the applicant has requested to privatize the public
streets and take over the associated street maintenance. Staff concurs with this approach. Final
Site Plan Condition No. 44 requires the finalization of the private streets prior to building
occupancy. The applicant has agreed to provide public access easements over the private streets
to allow for public vehicle and pedestrian access in perpetuity. The request to privatize a street is
subject to the approval of the City Council. The applicant is currently working with staff to bring
the request before the City Council in the near future.
Staff has also been working with the applicant on the Parking Management Plan and has agreed to
the applicant’s proposed plan in concept. However, the Traffic and Transportation Manager has
not yet approved the plan because Westside Drive and Meridian Street are currently public streets.
The applicant has agreed to a condition of approval that will require final approval of the Parking
Management Plan by the Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to the occupancy of the project
(Final Site Plan Condition No. 24).
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 7 of 9
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Master Site Plan: The City Council approved the A-Town Master Site Plan in 2015 in conjunction
with its approval of the Development Agreement. The Master Site Plan established eight
Development Areas (A through H) in the plan. The Code requires review and approval of Final
Site Plans to implement the individual mixed-use or residential projects within each Development
Area of the Master Site Plan. The Planning Commission must review and approve these Final Site
Plans at noticed public hearings prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Master Site Plan includes a minimum and maximum development range for the build-out of
the A-Town Metro project. This range allows the development of a minimum of 1,400 residential
units and a maximum of 1,746 residential units within the eight Development Areas. Each
Development Area included a target density range for the number of residential units. Each
Development Area could develop within that density range provided the total units in the Master
Site Plan did not go below the minimum or above the maximum number of units.
In the subject development area, Area H, the target density range is 90-99 units. The proposed
project is 84 units, six fewer than the minimum target density identified in the Master Site Plan.
The applicant has submitted a letter of justification for the reduction of units below the target range
(Attachment No. 6). In this letter, the applicant describes the current market demand for triplex
and traditional row townhomes. In an effort to meet this market demand and provide a for-sale
residential development to compliment other housing products in the Platinum Triangle, the
developer could not meet the target unit range for Area H. The applicant identifies in the letter
that because the adjacent proposed project in Area G will have 154 units, near the maximum for
the Development Area, the combined number of units for Areas G and H would be at the high end
of the range for both development areas combined (238 dwelling units, combined range 196-258
units). Staff concurs that for-sale units are an important component to providing a mix of
residential products in the Platinum Triangle. Staff has the discretion, and has concluded that since
together the proposed projects in Areas G and H, meet the targeted densities, the proposed project
in Area H substantially complies with the Master Site Plan.
Final Site Plan: Before the Planning Commission may approve a Final Site Plan application, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan,
any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials,
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 8 of 9
texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained;
and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed Final Site Plan was designed to be consistent with the General Plan and the
PTMLUP, as well as the PTMU Overlay Zone. The layout of the development is compatible with
the street configuration of the A-Town Master Site Plan and with the adjacent industrial and
residential properties to the west. Staff believes that this project would not interfere with the use
or enjoyment of the neighboring and future developments that that this property would create a
desirable urban environment for the residents. For these reasons staff recommends approval of the
Final Site Plan.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Before the Planning Commission may approve a CUP, 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 CUP is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular
area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the CUP under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Additionally, pursuant to Code section 18.20.090.050 (Modifications) the approval of a
modification to prescribed setbacks requires the following finding of fact:
1) The proposed use meets the minimum landscape requirements.
The applicant is proposing buildings that do not meet the minimum building-to-building setbacks
required by the Code. However, the PTMU Overlay Zone allows modifications to these setback
requirements through the approval of a CUP. As shown on the Site Plan on page 5 of this report,
the applicant is requesting reduced setbacks between buildings in 12 locations on the project site.
The minimum required distance between buildings is 20 feet; the applicant is providing between
11.8 feet and 15 feet.
In accordance with the required findings for a CUP, staff believes that the proposed building
separation modifications would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, as the separations are
interior to the proposed development and not adjacent to the surrounding development areas. The
buildings are designed to allow the full development of the site and would not be detrimental to
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005 (Area H)
May 29, 2019
Page 9 of 9
the health or safety of the residents. The building separations would not have any effect on the
traffic generated by the use and would not impose a burden on the streets in the development. Staff
believes that the proposed building separations would further the objectives of the PTMU Overlay
Zone by contributing to the unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages
pedestrian activity and that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are
harmonious with the character of the area.
Code requires at least 40% of landscaped area located between building separations. The plans
indicate that there is a minimum of 40% of landscaping between all building separations, including
those proposed with a reduced separation. This proposed landscaping meets Code requirements
and meets the required CUP finding for landscape requirements. For these reasons staff
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that
previously certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for
this request. An environmental checklist (Attachment No. 8) was prepared to determine that the
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, and
subsequent addenda, adequately analyzed the anticipated effects of the proposed project; and, that
the approved mitigation measures are appropriate for the project.
CONCLUSION: The proposed development is a carefully designed and planned project that
addresses the current and projected market conditions while continuing the implementation of the
A-Town Master Site Plan. The project also conforms to the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone
and staff believes that the proposed development would be an appropriate addition to the Platinum
Triangle. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Susan Kim
Senior Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Final Site Plan Resolution
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Final Site Plan Exhibits
4. Draft Parking Management Plan
5. Letter of Request
6. Development Area H Density Letter
7. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda
8. Environmental Checklist For EIR 339
9. Comments Received
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BDEV 2018-0003 4VACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area AVACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area BJEFFERSON STADIUM PARK/APARTMENTS UNDERCONSTRUCTION
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BA-TOWN METROAPARTMENTS
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area BVACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area AVACANT
I (PTMU)Gene Autry Sub-Area CINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIALI (PTMU)OfficeRETAIL
I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIAL I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Sub -Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Su b-Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Su b-Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Su b-Area AINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)OfficeINDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Ka tella Su b-Area AINDUSTRIAL
E GENE AUTRY WAY
S U N I O N S T
S W E S T S I D E D R
E PARK ST
S SANTA CRUZ ST
E MERIDIAN ST
GE NE AUTRY WAY
S M A R K E T S T
S U N I O N S T
GENE AUTRY WAY
E. KATELLA AVE
S . H A R B O R B L V D
E. CERRITOS AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
S .D O U G L A S S
R D
S . A N A H E I M B L V D
S .S U N K I S T
S T
S . C L E M E N T I N E S T
No r t h e a st co r n e r o f G e n e A u t r y W a y a n d W e st sid e Dr i ve
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 3 4
Subject Property APN: 232-121-36
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 8
E GENE AUTRY WAY
S U N I O N S T
S W E S T S I D E D R
E PARK ST
S SANTA CRUZ ST
E MERIDIAN ST
GE NE AUTRY WAY
S M A R K E T S T
S U N I O N S T
GENE AUTRY WAY
E. KATELLA AVE
S . H A R B O R B L V D
E. CERRITOS AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
S .D O U G L A S S
R D
S . A N A H E I M B L V D
S .S U N K I S T
S T
S . C L E M E N T I N E S T
No r t h e a st co r n e r o f G e n e A u t r y W a y a n d W e st sid e Dr i ve
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 3 4
Subject Property APN: 232-121-36
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 8
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2019-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT AREA 'G' OF THE MASTER SITE PLAN
APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2018-00005)
(DEV2018-00034)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
- 2 - PC2019-***
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
- 3 - PC2019-***
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
- 4 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
- 5 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
- 6 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
- 7 - PC2019-***
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Final Site Plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 to construct an 84-unit development located in 28
triplex townhome buildings at the premises located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Way and
Westside Drive in Development Area H of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum
Triangle in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on
- 8 - PC2019-***
the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property");
and
WHEREAS, in connection with Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005, and environmental
checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant environmental
impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339 Addendum No. 4
would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more
severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any changes in
circumstances involving the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005; therefore, the Final Site Plan No.
2018-00005 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously
identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human
beings would occur because of the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements collectively constitute the
environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual relating to the Existing Entitlements and shall be
referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, 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 proposed Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission has found and
determined and has recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the other CEQA Documents
collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to
CEQA relating to the Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution,
the CEQA Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plan No. 2018-
00005 and the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted;
and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under
CEQA for Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005.
- 9 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find and determine that the request for a Final
Site Plan for the Proposed Project should be approved for the following reasons:
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, the Final Site Plan, including its design and
layout, complies with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Zone, as
described in Chapter 18.20 of the Code.
2. The design and layout of Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 will not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 is compatible with the
character of the surrounding residential and industrial development located within the land area of
the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
4. The design of the Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 will provide a desirable
environment for its residents, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of
materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately
maintained.
5. Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, 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, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005, Addendum No. 4, the other CEQA
Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends that the City
Council approve Final Site Plan No. 2018-00005, in the form presented at the meeting at which
this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of (1) Conditional Use
Permit No. 2019-06003, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation
Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
- 10 - PC2019-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth in a separate resolution of this Planning Commission adopted relating
to the Existing Development Agreement. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be
declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction,
then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 29, 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 May 29, 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 29th day of May, 2019.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-10- PC2019-***
-11- PC2019-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL SITE PLAN PLAN NO. 2018-00005
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO GRADING PLAN APPROVAL
1 Condition Numbers 35 and 36 of PC2015-069 for the original approval of
the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
2 The developer/owner 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
3 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
5 Prepare and submit a final drainage 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
Division
6 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
7 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
Division
-12- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
8 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
Division
9 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review
and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of
Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant
Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of pollutants during the
long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could
affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define
Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable) best
management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program
to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the
defined BMPs. Submit three (3) copies and a plan checking deposit to the
Public Works/Development Services for consideration and approval.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall
address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069 for
the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this
permit.
Various City
Departments
12 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
13 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
14 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
-13- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
15 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
16 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as
well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water
services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and
permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
17 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
18 The developer/owner 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
19 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water
Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and
maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system
improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance
with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-14- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
20 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering
Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by
the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with
the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
21 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for recycled water system
requirements and specific water conservation measures to be incorporated
into the building and landscape construction plans.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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
24 A Parking Management Plan detailing the use of the on-street parking for
the project shall be submitted for review by the Traffic and Transportation
Manager. Building permits may not be issued until the Parking
Management Plan has been approved.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
25 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
Division
26 The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 5-ft public
sidewalk easement across A-Drive at Westside Drive.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
-15- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
27 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
Division
28 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance complies with the
State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AV
1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
29 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 The Developer shall submit an abandonment application for Meridian
Street, Park Street, Metro Drive and portions of Union Street and Westside
drive to the City for review and approval. Limits as determined by the City
Engineer shall be finalized during the abandonment process. The City will
reserve a public utility, pedestrian and vehicle access easement across the
abandoned streets.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 All onsite drives shall be private, owned and maintained by the Home
Owner’s Association. A solid waste and emergency vehicle access
easement shall be dedicated across the private drives.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 On-site Sewer and Storm Drain shall be private, owned and maintained by
the Home Owner’s Association.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
33 The developer shall construct sidewalk on Gene Autry Way, per the
platinum triangle standards, along the project’s frontage and join the
sidewalk constructed by the Gene Autry improvement City project
including the Midblock ADA ramps and striping. The developer shall
submit security in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to guarantee
construction of the public improvements prior to the issuance of the right
of way construction permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
34 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
-16- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
35 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
36 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
37 Owner 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
38 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected
and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building and zoning
inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
39 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be
paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
40 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 Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
41 Condition Numbers 100 and 101 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Fire Department
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
42 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT
43 Condition Numbers 106 through 109 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
-17- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
44 Approval from the City Council is required to vacate the public streets and
finalize the privatization of these streets as depicted in the Final Site Plan
exhibits.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
45 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on
building plans.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
46 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
47 A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be filed with CR&R’s for project. Public Works,
Streets and Sanitation
GENERAL
48 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
49 In accordance with the letter dated January 25, 2019 from Jackson Tidus
Law Corporation, representing the property owner and developer, the total
number of dwelling units for the entirety of the A-Town Master Site Plan
may be no fewer than 1,400 as approved by City Council and recorded in
the Development Agreement.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
50 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan for
the A-Town Development shall apply to this Final Site Plan approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
51 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
52 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.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private
alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
54 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-18- PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
55 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter,
Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
56 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those
identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified in the
measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of approval by
reference.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
57 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
58 The applicant shall pay all applicable fees as required by the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
59 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying and
holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council
from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing
individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related decision, or
the adoption of any environmental documents which relates to the approval
of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall include, but is not
limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert
witness fees that may be awarded to the prevailing party, and costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of or in
connection with the approval of the application or related decision, whether
or not there is concurrent, or passive negligence on the part of the City, its
agents, officers, council members, employees, boards, commissions and
their members and the City Council. The property owner/developer shall
have the right to select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to
approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal
counsel providing the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the
City for any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the
course of the defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City
Council's adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2019-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 'G' OF THE MASTER SITE
PLAN APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06003)
(DEV2018-00034)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
- 2 - PC2019-***
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
- 3 - PC2019-***
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
- 4 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
- 5 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
- 6 - PC2019-***
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
- 7 - PC2019-***
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Final Site Plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
- 8 - PC2019-***
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 to modify development standards for building
setbacks that are less than the minimum width required by the Zoning Code at the premises located
at the northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street in Development Area G of the Lennar
A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle 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, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, and
environmental checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant
environmental impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 4 would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be
substantially more severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any
changes in circumstances involving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002; therefore,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater
severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation
measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because of the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2019-06002, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in
conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing
Entitlements collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as
the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual relating to the
Existing Entitlements and shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, 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 proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission has found and
determined and has recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the other CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating to the
Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution, the CEQA
Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the
- 9 - PC2019-***
required environmental documentation for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 and
the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 321 for
the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted; and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-
06002 on the Property does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 is an
allowable use within the "PTMU " Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone under subsection
.060 of Section 18.20.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone)
of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the
"PTMU" Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone; and
2. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 would not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 will continue to further
the vision of the Platinum Triangle by contributing to a an overall urban design framework
ensuring that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with
the character of the area in which they are located; and
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety because the site will accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and circulation
without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Additionally, the plans indicate that
there is a minimum of 40% of landscaping between all building separations, including those
proposed with a reduced separation as required by Code; and
4. The traffic generated by Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002 will not impose
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area because the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets will not be increased
beyond what was analyzed and approved in FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda and what was approved
in the Existing Entitlements; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and
safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002
would further the objectives of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, subject to
compliance with the conditions contained herein.
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 presentation, 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
- 10 - PC2019-***
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, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, Addendum No. 4, the
other CEQA Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends
that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06002, in the form presented at
the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of
(1) Final Site Plan No. 2018-00004, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth in a separate resolution of this Planning Commission adopted relating
to the proposed Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any
such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of
any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall
be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 29, 2019.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 11 - 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 May 29, 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 29th day of May, 2019.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 12 - PC2019-***
- 13 - PC2019-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06003
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO GRADING PLAN APPROVAL
1 Condition Numbers 35 and 36 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
2 The developer/owner 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
3 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
5 Prepare and submit a final drainage 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
Division
6 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
7 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
Division
8 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
Division
- 14 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
9 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review
and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of
Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant
Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of pollutants during
the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that
could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site;
define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable)
best management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge
of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring
program to address the long-term implementation of and compliance
with the defined BMPs. Submit three (3) copies and a plan checking
deposit to the Public Works/Development Services for consideration and
approval.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall
address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069 for
the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this
permit.
Various City
Departments
12 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
13 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
14 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
15 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.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
- 15 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by
Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector.
16 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as
well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water
services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and
permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
17 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
18 The developer/owner 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
19 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department
Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water
system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and
Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
20 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering
Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved
by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted
with the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
- 16 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
21 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for recycled water system
requirements and specific water conservation measures to be
incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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
24 A Parking Management Plan detailing the use of the on-street parking for
the project shall be submitted for review by the Traffic and
Transportation Manager. Building permits may not be issued until the
Parking Management Plan has been approved.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
25 Provide a certificate, from a Re gistered Civil Engineer, certifying that the
finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City
approved grading plan.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
26 The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 5-ft public
sidewalk easement across A-Drive at Westside Drive.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
27 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
Division
- 17 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
28 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance complies with
the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AV
1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
29 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.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 The Developer shall submit an abandonment application for Meridian
Street, Park Street, Metro Drive and portions of Union Street and
Westside drive to the City for review and approval. Limits as determined
by the City Engineer shall be finalized during the abandonment process.
The City will reserve a public utility, pedestrian and vehicle access
easement across the abandoned streets.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 All onsite drives shall be private, owned and maintained by the Home
Owner’s Association. A solid waste and emergency vehicle access
easement shall be dedicated across the private drives.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 On-site Sewer and Storm Drain shall be private, owned and maintained
by the Home Owner’s Association.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
33 The developer shall construct sidewalk on Gene Autry Way, per the
platinum triangle standards, along the project’s frontage and join the
sidewalk constructed by the Gene Autry improvement City project
including the Midblock ADA ramps and striping. The developer shall
submit security in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to guarantee
construction of the public improvements prior to the issuance of the right
of way construction permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
34 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
35 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
36 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
- 18 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
37 Owner 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
38 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected
and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building and zoning
inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
39 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must
be paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
40 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 Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
41 Condition Numbers 100 and 101 of PC2015-069 for the original approval
of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Fire Department
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
42 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT
43 Condition Numbers 106 through 109 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Community Services
Department, and
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
44 Approval from the City Council is required to vacate the public streets
and finalize the privatization of these streets as depicted in the Final Site
Plan exhibits.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
45 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on
building plans.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
- 19 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
46 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
47 A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be filed with CR&R’s for project. Public Works,
Streets and Sanitation
GENERAL
48 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
49 In accordance with the letter dated January 25, 2019 from Jackson Tidus
Law Corporation, representing the property owner and developer, the
total number of dwelling units for the entirety of the A-Town Master Site
Plan may be no fewer than 1,400 as approved by City Council and
recorded in the Development Agreement.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
50 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan
for the A-Town Development shall apply to this Final Site Plan approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
51 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
52 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.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
54 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
55 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
56 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation
of those identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 20 - PC2019-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
in the measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of
approval by reference.
57 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
58 The applicant shall pay all applicable fees as required by the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
59 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying
and holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council
from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the
foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related
decision, or the adoption of any environmental documents which relates
to the approval of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall
include, but is not limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses,
attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be awarded to the prevailing
party, and costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other costs, liabilities and
expenses arising out of or in connection with the approval of the
application or related decision, whether or not there is concurrent, or
passive negligence on the part of the City, its agents, officers, council
members, employees, boards, commissions and their members and the
City Council. The property owner/developer shall have the right to select
legal counsel. The City shall have the right to approve, which approval
will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s
defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and
expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the course of the defense.
No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City Council's adoption of
the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 2005-00008, the
legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City satisfactory to the
City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
COVER SHEET
CIVIL SHEET INDEXC-1 SITE PLANC-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-3 PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLANC-4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANC-5 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEXL-1 CONCEPTUAL OVERALL PLANL-2 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT PLANSL-3 RECREATION/LEISURE PLANL-4 IRRIGATION PLANL-5 SITE MATERIALSL-6 LINEAR PARK CONCEPT PLAN
ARCHITECTURE SHEET INDEXA-1 FLOOR PLANS - FIRST FLOORA-2 FLOOR PLANS - SECOND FLOORA-3 FLOOR PLANS - THIRD FLOOR A-4 ROOF PLAN 3AA-5 ROOF PLAN 3BA-6 ROOF PLAN 3CA-7 ROOF PLAN 3DA-8 PLAN 1A-9 PLAN 2A-10 PLAN 3A-11 SECTION A-AA-12 FRONT ELEVATION - STYLE 3A A-13 FRONT ELEVATION - STYLE 3BA-14 FRONT ELEVATION - STYLE 3CA-15 FRONT ELEVATION - STYLE 3DA-16 ELEVATIONS - STYLE 3AA-17 ELEVATIONS - STYLE 3BA-18 ELEVATIONS - STYLE 3CA-19 ELEVATIONS - STYLE 3DA-20 3D VIEWA-21 3D VIEWA-22 SOLAR STUDYA-23 SOLAR STUDYA-24 COLOR CHARTA-25 COLOR & MATERIALS
LIGHTING SHEET INDEXEP-10 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLANEP-20 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN
CANDELA
LIGHTING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
PROJECT NUMBER: 17045.02 02/04/2019
FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
A-TOWN PARCEL H
ANAHEIM, CA
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP
UP
UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
UPUPGENE AUTRY WAY MERIDIAN STREE
T
WESTSIDE DRIVE "A" DRIVE"B" DRIVE "C" DRIVE
"D" DRIVE
"E" DRIVE PVT. CT. "B"PVT. CT. "A"PVT. C
T
.
"
C
"
PVT. CT. "D"UP UP UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
MB MB (PRIVATE STREET)(PUBLIC STREET)(PRIVATE STREET)WESTSIDE DRIVE(PUBLIC STREET)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
6
2
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
-
2
1
3
'
8
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
1
3
'
8
'
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
5
'
5
'
5
'
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
1
3
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
3
'
1
6
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
/
W
R
/
W
1
4
.
5
'
3
5
'
3
5
'
1
4
.
5
'
8
6
'
1
1
5
'
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
M
e
d
i
a
n
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
-
1
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
-
C
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
-
D
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
-
E
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
-
F
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
-
H
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
G
-
G
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
-
I
N
.
T
.
S
.
C
-
1
S
H
E
E
T
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
H
L
O
T
7
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
I
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
M
B
UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP
UP
UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
UPUPGENE AUTRY WAY MERIDIAN STREE
T
WESTSIDE DRIVE "A" DRIVE"B" DRIVE "C" DRIVE
"D" DRIVE
"E" DRIVE PVT. CT. "B"PVT. CT. "A"PVT. C
T
.
"
C
"
PVT. CT. "D"UP UP UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
MB MB (PRIVATE STREET)(PUBLIC STREET)(PRIVATE STREET)WESTSIDE DRIVE(PUBLIC STREET)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
6
2
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
-
2
1
3
'
8
'
3
1
'
1
0
'
2
1
'
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
1
0
'
1
3
'
8
'
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
o
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
T
r
e
e
s
i
n
T
r
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
s
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
5
'
5
'
5
'
5
'
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
1
3
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
1
'
1
3
'
1
6
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
7
'
7
.
5
'
9
.
5
'
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
'
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3
'
U
s
e
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
P
T
M
U
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Z
o
n
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
/
W
R
/
W
1
4
.
5
'
3
5
'
3
5
'
1
4
.
5
'
8
6
'
1
1
5
'
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
M
e
d
i
a
n
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
)
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
*
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
-
1
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
7
.
5
'
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
.
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
*
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
N
o
t
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
-
C
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
-
D
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
-
E
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
-
F
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
-
H
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
G
-
G
N
.
T
.
S
.
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
-
I
N
.
T
.
S
.
C
-
2
S
H
E
E
T
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
H
L
O
T
7
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
I
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
M
B
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUP
UP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTSIDE DRIVE
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"B" DRIVE
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"
E
"
D
R
I
V
E
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
B
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
A
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
C
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
D
"
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
3
S
H
E
E
T
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
H
L
O
T
7
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
W
E
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTSIDE DRIVE
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"B" DRIVE
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"
E
"
D
R
I
V
E
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
B
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
A
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
C
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
D
"
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
4
S
H
E
E
T
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
H
L
O
T
7
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
S
O
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
P
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
U
P
U
P
U
P
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTSIDE DRIVE
"
A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"B" DRIVE
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
"
E
"
D
R
I
V
E
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
B
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
A
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
C
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
D
"
UP
UP
UP
U
P
U
P
U
P
M
B
M
B
(
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
(PRIVATE STREET)
WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PUBLIC STREET)
C
-
5
S
H
E
E
T
F
I
N
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
-
T
O
W
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
H
L
O
T
7
,
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
7
0
3
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
D
A
T
E
:
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
F
I
R
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
P
L
A
N
11
Mi
n
.
PROPOSED TREE LEGENDPROPOSED PLANT LEGEND
KEYMAP
Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“C” DRIVE
“E” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
GENE AUTRY WAY
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
Decorative pavers at vehicular entry
Line of sight triangle per City of Anaheim Engineering
Standard Detail 115-B (low groundcover planting this
area not to exceed 24” height)
Rec Center (Refer to enlargement sheet L-2)
Trash and bulky item enclosure
Open lawn area
Overhead trellis with BBQ and dining tables (refer to
enlargement sheet L-2)
Date palm grove with seating and decomposed granite
paving
Private patio
Low masonry wall at corner (24” height max)
Corner plaza with seatwall and enhanced paving
Clipped hedge at block ends
Future Linear Park (Aloe Promenade) per separate
submittal. Park to be developed in concurrence with
residential parcels. (Refer to Sheet L-6)
Streetscape per A-Town Street Improvement Plans.
Not a part of this submittal.
PROPOSED PLANTING LEGENDLEGEND
10
5
9
4
8
3
12
13
6
7
2
1
1 3
12
7
12
12
5
50
’
-
0
”
10’
10
’
15
’
13
10
9
13
13
11 118688
2
4
7’
A. All above ground utility equipment will be located
outside of required setbacks and screened from view in
accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.36:160
B. Prior to the last final building and zoning inspection
for Development Area G or H, whichever is later, the Public
Linear Park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Services.
C. No decorative concrete or pavers shall be allowed in the
right of way.
D. No private improvements or building structures including
but not limited to porches, decks, balconies, stairs/steps,
handrails, landings, building eaves or any other private
improvements shall encroach onto the future Linear Park or
the public right of way.
NOTES
Mi
n
.
Min.
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-1A-TOWN
CONCEPTUAL OVERALL PLAN - PARCEL H
MERIDIAN STREET
GENE AUTRY WAY
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
Rec Area Building with restrooms, showers, pool/spa
equipment room and package room
Covered patio area at Rec Building with BBQ and dining tables
Secondary pool area entry with overhead trellis
Swimming pool (45’x24’, 1080 sf)
Spa (10’x8’, 80 sf)
Masonry backdrop wall at spa with decorative inset panel
Overhead trellises at backdrop wall with fire tables and lounge
seating
Chaise lounges
Pool enclosure fence
Trash and bulky item enclosure
KEYMAP
LEGEND LEGEND
10
5
4
9
4
8
3
3
6
5
7
2
2
2
1
1 4 5
1
5 5433
1 2
Open lawn area
Overhead trellis with dining tables
BBQ
Paving with dining tables
Private patio with decomposed granite paving
OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1”=10’-0”
REC CENTER ENLARGEMENT
SCALE: 1”=10’-0”
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“E” DRIVE
9 8
398
7
7
10
6
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-2A-TOWN
CONCEPTUAL REC CENTER ENLARGMENT PLAN - PARCEL H
KEYMAP
Limit of Work Line
Limit of Work Line Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN STREET
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“C” DRIVE
“C” DRIVE “C” DRIVE
“E” DRIVE
“E” DRIVE “E” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE “A” DRIVE
GENE AUTRY WAY GENE AUTRY WAY GENE AUTRY WAY
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
LEGEND
GROUND LEVEL (SCALE: 1”=30’)2ND FLOOR (SCALE: 1”=50’)3RD FLOOR (SCALE: 1”=50’)
Common Recreation Area
Private Balcony Areas
Other Landscaped Recreation-Leisure Areas
(minimum 10-foot width)
RECREATION-LEISURE PLAN - PARCEL H
RECREATION-LEISURE AREA SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA: 42,060 SQ.FT.
Common Recreation Area 7068 sq.ft.
Private Balcony Areas (2nd floor)8,988 sq.ft.
Other Landscape Recration-Leisure Areas 26,004 sq.ft.
85
’
-
5
”
82’-9”
Rec Area
7068 sq.ft.
No private balconies on 3rd floor.
Refer to Architectural Plans.
NOTE:
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-3A-TOWN
KEYMAP
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION NARRATIVE – PARCEL H – A-TOWN
THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION DESIGN INCLUDES SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WATER
RESOURCES AS FOLLOWS:
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE RECYCLED WATER, PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THE LANDSCAPE IS DIVIDED INTO IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WITH DIFFERING WATER REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON THE PLANT MATERIAL, SLOPE, SOLAR ORIENTATION AND IRRIGATION APPLICATION TYPE.
A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TURF GRASS HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS A PLAY SURFACE. TURF
WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY ROTATOR TYPE NOZZLES, CONNECTED TO
6” PRESSURE REGULATING POP-UP HEADS.
SHRUB AND GROUND COVERS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY IN-LINE
EMITTER DRIP TUBING WITH A UNIFORM SPACING OF EMITTERS AND TUBING
SPACING, INSTALLED ON GRADE BELOW THE MULCH SURFACE. THE DRIP SYSTEMS
ARE SERVED BY VALVES EQUIPPED WITH BASKET FILTERS AND PRESSURE
REGULATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE IRRIGATION: TREES LARGER THAN 24” BOX SIZEWILL RECEIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION FROM SEPARATE VALVE(S) UTILIZING HIGH EFFICIENCY
SQUARE MICRO SPRAY NOZZLES. TREES SMALLER THAT 24” SIZE WILL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL POINT SOURCE EMITTERS FROM THE ADJACENT DRIP TUBING.
THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION WILL INCLUDE A MASTER VALVE AND A FLOW SENSOR TO ALLOW THE
CONTROLLER TO DETECT AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF LATERAL OR PRESSURE
SUPPLY LINE PIPING BREAKS.
PLANTINGS WILL BE GROUPED BY THEIR WATER CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE LATEST WUCOLS IV
CLASSICATIONS.
THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WILL INCORPORATE SMART WATER APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY (SWAT)
THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST IRRIGATION RUM TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO INCORPORATE A RAIN SHUT OF DEVICE.
UTILIZING THESE COMPONENTS AND IRRIGATION METHODOLOGY THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED
WATER USE WILL MEET THE ALLOTMENT REQUIREMENT PER THE CURRENT CITY OF ANAHEIM WELO
ORDINANCE.
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Total MAWA = (Eto) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA in Sq.ft.)+(0.3xSLA in Sq.ft.)
Hydrozone:Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA
Landscaped Area 49.7 0.55 43,966 0.62 43,966 1,151,553 #########recycled
water
Estimated Annual Water Use:
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE
Hydrozone:Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Low Water Use 49.7 0.2 0 0.62 0.0 0
Medium Water Use 49.7 0.5 41,389 0.62 0.8 787,260
High Water Use (Turf)49.7 0.7 1,417 0.62 0.7 43,663
High (Pool/Spa)49.7 1.0 1,160 0.62 1.0 35,744
Total EAWU:43,966 866,667
Landscape Irrigation Water Use
Project Name: Parcel H ‐ A‐Town
Date: May 5, 2019
IRRIGATION DATA
Limit of Work Line
MERIDIAN STREET
“B
”
D
R
I
V
E
“D
”
D
R
I
V
E
“C” DRIVE
“E” DRIVE
“A” DRIVE
GENE AUTRY WAY
WE
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
LEGEND
Shrubs and Groundcover
Turf
Pool/Spa
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-4A-TOWN
IRRIGATION PLAN - PARCEL H
PAVING WALLS
PAINT
ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVING PROJECT CORNER ACCENT WALLS
SPA BACKDROP WALL
SITE METAL WORK
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVING
PRODUCTION CONCRETE PAVING PRIVATE PATIO PAVING
PAVER SHAPE:
3”x12” Linear Concrete Paver
At Project Entry
At Paseo and Open Space Shade Structure
Railings, Shade Structures
PAVER SHAPE:
4”x30” Linear Concrete Paver
PAVER COLOR:
Victorian Blend
with Shotblast Finsh
PAVER COLOR:
Victorian Blend
with Shotblast Finish
PAVER LAYOUT:
Herringbone
PAVER LAYOUT:
Running Bond
CONCRETE COLOR*:
Winter Beige
Scofield #6063
* Concrete Paver Bands
CONCRETE FINISH:
Topcast
CONCRETE FINISH:
Topcast
COLOR:
Mojave Gold
Decomposed Granite
CONCRETE COLOR:
Winter Beige
Scofield #6063
WALL BLOCK:
Glacier White
Split Face Finish
PAINT COLOR:
Urbane Bronze
SW 7048
STUCCO COLOR:
SW 7633
Taupe Tone
(Finish to Match Architecture)
CAP:
Glacier White
Shotblast Finish
SITE MATERIALS - PARCEL H
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-5A-TOWN
Water feature at park entry
Date palm grove with seating and
decomposed granite paving
Social spaces with seating, shade structures
and decomposed granite paving
Specimen tree
Date palm
Natural turf
Accessible synthetic turf play surfacing
Art / sculpture
Stackable concrete climbing blocks
Low wall with seating
Social seating area with enhanced concrete
paving
Bocce court with decomposed granite paving
Outdoor game table
Shade structure and seating
Park monument sign
Proposed reclaimed water line
Linear Park Area:25,656 sf
(0.59 acre)
GE
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
DEVELOPMENT
AREA ‘H’
DEVELOPMENT
AREA ‘G’
ME
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEGEND
PARK AREA
5
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
1
1516141211891058676432113
SE
C
T
I
O
N
-
A
ALOE PROMENADE AT A-TOWN
WEST EAST
41’-0”
41
’
-
0
”
15
’
-
0
”
PLPL
PL
PL
SECTION A - TYPICAL PROMENADE
1/4”=1’-0”
This sheet included for informational
purposes only. Aloe Promenade/Linear
Park concept plan is preliminary and
subject to review and approval by
City of Anaheim Community Services
Department.
NOTE:
KEYMAP
ANAHEIM, CA
05.06.19
L-6A-TOWN
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-1
2,153 SF
3 BEDROOM + DEN, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
230 CU STORAGE
UNIT 3UNIT 1UNIT 2
1,986 SF
3 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
265 CU STORAGE
2,299 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
260 CU STORAGE
FLOOR PLANS
FIRST FLOOR
A
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-2
UNIT 3UNIT 1UNIT 2
FLOOR PLANS
SECOND FLOOR
2,153 SF
3 BEDROOM + DEN, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
DECK -124 SF
1,986 SF
3 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
DECK - 112 SF
2,299 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
DECK - 96 SF
17’-9” X 7’-0”16’-3” X 7’-0”
7’-0” X 12’-2”
A
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-3
UNIT 3UNIT 1UNIT 2
THIRD FLOOR
FLOOR PLANS
2,153 SF
3 BEDROOM + DEN, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
1,986 SF
3 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
2,299 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
A
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-4
ROOF PLAN (STYLE 3A)
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-5
ROOF PLAN (STYLE 3B)
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-6
ROOF PLAN (STYLE 3C)
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-7
ROOF PLAN (STYLE 3D)
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-8
FIRST FLOOR
410 SF
SECOND FLOOR
728 SF
THIRD FLOOR
837 SF
1,975 SF
3 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
COVERED DECK - 112 SF
STORAGE - 265 CU
PLAN 1
21’-1”
41
’
-
0
”
16’-3”
21’-4”
7’
-
0
”
20
’
-
2
”
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
KEY MAP
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-9
FIRST FLOOR
411 SF
SECOND FLOOR
791 SF
THIRD FLOOR
903 SF
2,105 SF
3 BEDROOM + DEN, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
COVERED DECK - 124 SF
STORAGE - 230 CU
PLAN 2
22’-1”
41
’
-
0
”
17’-9”
7’
-
0
”
21’-6”
20
’
-
2
”
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
KEY MAP
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-10
FIRST FLOOR
460 SF
SECOND FLOOR
896 SF
THIRD FLOOR
939 SF
2,295 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BATH
2 CAR GARAGE (ATTACHED)
COVERED DECK - 96 SF
STORAGE - 260 CU
PLAN 3
23’-6”
41
’
-
0
”
7’-0”
12
’
-
2
”
21’-6”
20
’
-
2
”
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
KEY MAP
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-11
SECTION A-A
37
’
-
8
/
2
”
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-12
STYLE 3A - SCHEME 2FRONT ELEVATION
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-13
STYLE 3B - SCHEME 1FRONT ELEVATION
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-14
STYLE 3C - SCHEME 3FRONT ELEVATION
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-15
STYLE 3D - SCHEME 4FRONT ELEVATION
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL CANOPY
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-16
ELEVATIONS STYLE 3A - SCHEME 2
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-17
ELEVATIONS STYLE 3B - SCHEME 1
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWSVINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-18
ELEVATIONS
STYLE 3C - SCHEME 3
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTERCEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWSVINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDINGHORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-19
ELEVATIONS
STYLE 3D - SCHEME 4
REAR
FRONT
RIGHT
LEFT
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPY
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
CEMENT PLASTER
METAL RAILING
METAL RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWSVINYL WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
HORIZONTAL CLADDING
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-20
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
3D VIEW
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-21
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
3D VIEW
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-22
N
E
S
W 5:55 AM6:02 PM
12:00 PM
March 21
N
E
S
W
4:42 AM7:04 PM
12:00 PM
June 22
N
E
S
W 5:39 AM5:50 PM
12:00 PM
September 21
N
E
S
W
6:54 AM4:45 PM
12:00 PM
December 22
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
SPRING EQUINOX
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
SUMMER SOLSTICE
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
FALL EQUINOX
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
WINTER SOLSTICE
SOLAR STUDY
SPRING EQUINOX SUMMER SOLSTICE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-23
N E
S
W 5:55 AM6:02 PM 12:00 PM March 21 N E
S
W 4:42 AM7:04 PM 12:00 PM June 22
N
E
S
W 5:39 AM5:50 PM
12:00 PM
September 21
N
E
S
W
6:54 AM4:45 PM
12:00 PM
December 22
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
SPRING EQUINOX
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
SUMMER SOLSTICE
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
FALL EQUINOX
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
WINTER SOLSTICE
SOLAR STUDY
FALL EQUINOX WINTER SOLSTICE
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-24
Scheme #Enhanced Architectural Frame Horizontal Cladding Metal Railing Vinyl Windows Balcony Door Sectional Garage Door
Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Omega Stucco Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Sherwin Williams Windor TBD Wayne Dalton
20:30 Fine Sand Float 16:20 Finish 20:30 Fine Sand Float Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7064 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Passive Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 7065 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Argos Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 9163 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Tin Lizzie Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
SW 7047 SW 7005 SW 7017 SW 6991 SW 7067 SW 7005 SW 7019 SW 7515 SW 2845 SW 7019
Porpoise Pure White Dorian Gray Black Magic Cityscape Pure White Gauntlet Gray Homestead Brown Bunglehouse Gray Urban Bronze
Architectural FramesExterior Cement Plaster (1st Floor)Exterior Cement Plaster (2nd & 3rd Floors)
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1188
1188
1
2
3
4
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-872
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775
1188
1188
1/2 A-775
1/2 A-775 Silver
Entry Doors (Parcel H Only)
TBD
Silver
Silver
Silver
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
COLOR CHART
PARCEL H
17045.02 02/04/2019A-25
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL
C2 COLLABORATIVE
LANDSCAPE
CANDELA
LIGHTING
A TOWN
ANAHEIM, CA
METAL RAILING
SLIDING DOOR SYSTEM
ALUMINIUM
STOREFRONT WINDOWS
VINYL WINDOWS
COLOR & MATERIALS
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
(1ST FLOOR)
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
(2ND & 3RD FLOORS)
OPTION ASCHEME 1
SCHEME 2
SCHEME 3
SCHEME 4
OPTION B
OPTION C
ARCHITECTURAL FRAMES ENTRY DOORSHORIZONTAL CLADDING
ENHANCED ELEVATION D
ARCHITECTURAL FRAME
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
J
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
W
R
R
A
T
E
D
-
G
F
C
I
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
E
D
R
E
C
E
P
T
A
C
L
E
W
/
I
N
U
S
E
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
W
P
J
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
I
N
G
L
E
P
O
L
E
S
W
I
T
C
H
ELECTRICAL KEY NOTES
J
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T
LANDSCAPING18" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT)LOW VOLTAGE (>30V)LANDSCAPE LIGHTINGDIRECT BURIAL CABLE 6" MIN STREETS, HIGHWAYS,ROADS ALLEYS,DRIVEWAYS, ANDPARKING LOTS24" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT),RIGID METAL CONDUITAND DIRECT BURIAL CABLES RIGID METAL CONDUITOR INTERMEDIATEMETAL CONDUIT MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS2 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT INDICATES CIRCUIT NUMBER (TYPICAL)3 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT2 #12 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #12 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
B
O
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
R
B
P
1. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING CONDUCTORS TO BE # 12 THHN/THWN-2 CU IN 3/4" S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
4
0
P
V
C
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MINIMUM COVER PER NEC 300.5(A) (SEE THIS SH
E
E
T
)
2. UNDERGROUND PULL BOXES ARE TO BE SIZE 3-1/2. ADDITIONAL PULL BOXES
M
A
Y
B
E
N
E
E
D
E
D
T
H
A
N
CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO HELP IN PULLING THE CONDUCTORS D
U
R
I
N
G
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
T
H
E
COVER OF THE PULL BOXES ARE TO BE MARKED WITH "ELECTRIC".3. SPLICES AND TAPS SHALL BE MADE IN PULL BOXES OR POLE BASE HAND HOL
E
S
O
N
L
Y
.
4. REFER TO THE DRY UTILITY CONSULTANT PLANS OR SERVING UTILITY PLANS
T
O
C
O
N
F
I
R
M
T
H
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
LOCATION PRIOR TO BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK.5.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 3/16" MIN. PULL ROPE IN ALL EMP
T
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
O
R
S
L
E
E
V
E
S
.
6. UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, UNLESS LOCAL CODE
S
O
R
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONDUIT.7. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST NEVER HAVE A GENERAL LIGHTING FIX
T
U
R
E
(
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
,
P
O
L
E
LIGHT, BOLLARD, ETC.) WIRED AFTER AN ACCENT LIGHT SUCH THAT IF THE AC
C
E
N
T
L
I
G
H
T
W
A
S
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
OR DAMAGED IT WOULD AFFECT THE GENERAL LIGHTING FIXTURE'S POWER.8. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST FLIP THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TO OFF BE
F
O
R
E
A
N
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
O
R
REPLACEMENT OF AN ELECTRICAL FIXTURE, LAMP, DEVICE OR CONTROLLER.9. IF GATES FOR PEDESTRIANS AND/OR VEHICLES ARE TO BE INSTALLED; THE EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
TO COORDINATE WITH THE GATE CONTRACTOR(S) TO MAKE SURE ANY NECES
S
A
R
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
,
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
S
OR WIRING ARE TO BE INSTALLED OTHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLA
N
.
A
L
S
O
,
L
O
W
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
CONDUIT MAY ALSO BE NEEDED FOR ACCESS CONTROL. COORDINATE ON LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
FOR KNOX BOX, PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED.10. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SIMULTANEO
U
S
L
Y
C
H
A
R
G
E
A
L
L
DESIGNATED EV SPACES AT THE FULL RATED AMPERAGE OF THE EVSE. PLAN
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
UPON A 40-AMPERE MINIMUM BRANCH CIRCUIT. A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PER
M
I
T
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
11. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE
O
V
E
R
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E
DEVICE SPACE(S) RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING PURPOSES AS EV C
A
P
A
B
L
E
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE.
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
H
P
1
H
.
.
-
X
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
R
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
V
D
=
X
.
X
%
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
D
R
O
P
H..-X212 H..-X310 H..-X210
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
D
E
S
T
A
L
EXTERIOR SITE ELECTRICAL NOTES
A
2
1
1
W
.
L
E
D
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
(
1
0
L
E
D
s
)
T
Y
P
E
I
I
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
5
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
K
L
A
M
P
K
I
M
#
C
B
X
X
-
1
0
L
-
3
5
K
-
U
V
-
F
I
N
I
S
H
O
T
H
E
R
X
X
-
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
C
(
1
)
4
"
S
L
E
E
V
E
W
I
T
H
P
U
L
L
R
O
P
E
A
1
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
M
E
T
E
R
&
M
A
S
T
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
R
E
M
O
T
E
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
F
E
E
D
E
R
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
N
G
L
E
L
I
N
E
D
I
G
R
A
M
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
E
0
-
3
0
B
4
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
T
O
B
E
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
W
I
T
H
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
O
R
E
Q
U
A
L
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
3
5
0
0
°
K
.
W
I
T
H
S
O
L
I
D
T
O
P
A
N
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
N
S
B
O
T
T
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
1
2
W
.
L
E
D
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
-
(
1
2
0
0
L
U
M
E
N
M
I
N
.
)
T
O
B
E
A
T
O
R
A
B
O
V
E
+
7
'
-
0
"
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
O
C
C
U
R
A
T
E
V
E
R
Y
U
N
I
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
E
X
A
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
S
A
M
E
A
S
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
A
T
U
N
I
Q
U
E
B
2
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
A
4
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
2
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
(
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
3
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
2
#
1
2
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
2
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
2
H
.
.
-
X
3
1
0
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
0
1
F
U
T
U
R
E
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
D
U
A
L
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
F
R
O
N
T
S
I
D
E
0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7
1
.
4
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
4
1
.
3
1
.
1
1
.
6
1
.
7
1
.
5
1
.
7
1
.
4
1
.
0
1
.
4
1
.
8
2
.
0
1
.
6
1
.
7
1
.
5
1
.
2
1
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
7
1
.
6
1
.
3
1
.
5
1
.
4
1
.
1
1
.
7
1
.
4
1
.
0
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
7
1
.
1
0
.
6
1
.
3
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
6
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
4
1
.
7
1
.
9
1
.
4
1
.
3
1
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
7
1
.
5
1
.
8
2
.
3
2
.
2
2
.
3
2
.
1
2
.
1
1
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
6
1
.
3
0
.
9
1
.
7
2
.
0
2
.
2
2
.
5
2
.
0
1
.
9
1
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
7
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
9
1
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
7
1
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
7
1
.
2
0
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
6
1
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
3
1
.
1
0
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
6
1
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
9
1
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
1
1
.
0
0
.
9
1
.
1
0
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
6
1
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
8
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
1
1
.
7
0
.
5
1
.
6
0
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
1
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
5
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
5
1
.
3
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
5
1
.
1
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
4
1
.
5
2
.
2
1
.
8
2
.
4
1
.
9
2
.
3
1
.
6
1
.
6
3
.
0
2
.
2
1
.
6
1
.
1
1
.
4
1
.
9
2
.
0
4
.
9
2
.
9
2
.
0
2
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
0
1
.
5
1
.
8
1
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
4
1
.
6
A
1
C
C
A
4
A
4
A4A4
B
4
B4
"A
"
D
R
I
V
E
"
C
"
D
R
I
V
E
"D" DRIVE
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
A
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
D
"
A
1
A
1
A
1
A
1
ANAHEIM, CA
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
|
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
2
7
2
0
1
C
a
l
l
e
J
u
a
n
i
t
a
D
a
n
a
P
o
i
n
t
,
C
A
9
2
6
2
4
P
h
.
9
4
9
.
2
0
1
.
1
3
3
3
c
a
n
d
e
l
a
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
L
E
N
N
A
R
2
5
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
A
L
I
S
O
V
I
E
J
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
6
5
6
C
L
I
E
N
T
:
S
T
A
M
P
:
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
A-TOWN
T
E
L
:
9
4
9
.
3
4
9
.
8
0
5
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
X
8
-
0
8
8
D
A
T
E
:
0
2
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
PARCEL H
1
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
E
P
-
1
0
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
P
-
2
0
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
J
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
B
O
X
W
R
R
A
T
E
D
-
G
F
C
I
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
E
D
R
E
C
E
P
T
A
C
L
E
W
/
I
N
U
S
E
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
W
P
J
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
I
N
G
L
E
P
O
L
E
S
W
I
T
C
H
ELECTRICAL KEY NOTES
J
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T
LANDSCAPING18" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT)LOW VOLTAGE (>30V)LANDSCAPE LIGHTINGDIRECT BURIAL CABLE 6" MIN STREETS, HIGHWAYS,ROADS ALLEYS,DRIVEWAYS, ANDPARKING LOTS24" MINNONMETALLIC RACEWAY(I.E. PVC CONDUIT),RIGID METAL CONDUITAND DIRECT BURIAL CABLES RIGID METAL CONDUITOR INTERMEDIATEMETAL CONDUIT MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS2 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT INDICATES CIRCUIT NUMBER (TYPICAL)3 #10 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #10 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT2 #12 THHN/THWN-2-CU & 1 #12 CU-GNDIN 3/4" SCH. 40 PVC. CONDUIT
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
B
O
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
R
B
P
1. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING CONDUCTORS TO BE # 12 THHN/THWN-2 CU IN 3/4" S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
4
0
P
V
C
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MINIMUM COVER PER NEC 300.5(A) (SEE THIS SH
E
E
T
)
2. UNDERGROUND PULL BOXES ARE TO BE SIZE 3-1/2. ADDITIONAL PULL BOXES
M
A
Y
B
E
N
E
E
D
E
D
T
H
A
N
CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO HELP IN PULLING THE CONDUCTORS D
U
R
I
N
G
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
T
H
E
COVER OF THE PULL BOXES ARE TO BE MARKED WITH "ELECTRIC".3. SPLICES AND TAPS SHALL BE MADE IN PULL BOXES OR POLE BASE HAND HOL
E
S
O
N
L
Y
.
4. REFER TO THE DRY UTILITY CONSULTANT PLANS OR SERVING UTILITY PLANS
T
O
C
O
N
F
I
R
M
T
H
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
LOCATION PRIOR TO BEGINNING UNDERGROUND WORK.5.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 3/16" MIN. PULL ROPE IN ALL EMP
T
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
O
R
S
L
E
E
V
E
S
.
6. UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, UNLESS LOCAL CODE
S
O
R
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONDUIT.7. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST NEVER HAVE A GENERAL LIGHTING FIXT
U
R
E
(
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
,
P
O
L
E
LIGHT, BOLLARD, ETC.) WIRED AFTER AN ACCENT LIGHT SUCH THAT IF THE AC
C
E
N
T
L
I
G
H
T
W
A
S
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
OR DAMAGED IT WOULD AFFECT THE GENERAL LIGHTING FIXTURE'S POWER.8. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MUST FLIP THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TO OFF BE
F
O
R
E
A
N
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
O
R
REPLACEMENT OF AN ELECTRICAL FIXTURE, LAMP, DEVICE OR CONTROLLER.9. IF GATES FOR PEDESTRIANS AND/OR VEHICLES ARE TO BE INSTALLED; THE EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
TO COORDINATE WITH THE GATE CONTRACTOR(S) TO MAKE SURE ANY NECES
S
A
R
Y
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
,
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
S
OR WIRING ARE TO BE INSTALLED OTHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLA
N
.
A
L
S
O
,
L
O
W
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
CONDUIT MAY ALSO BE NEEDED FOR ACCESS CONTROL. COORDINATE ON LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
FOR KNOX BOX, PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED.10. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SIMULTANEO
U
S
L
Y
C
H
A
R
G
E
A
L
L
DESIGNATED EV SPACES AT THE FULL RATED AMPERAGE OF THE EVSE. PLAN
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
B
A
S
E
D
UPON A 40-AMPERE MINIMUM BRANCH CIRCUIT. A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PER
M
I
T
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
11. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE
O
V
E
R
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E
DEVICE SPACE(S) RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING PURPOSES AS EV C
A
P
A
B
L
E
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE.
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
H
P
1
H
.
.
-
X
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
R
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
P
A
N
E
L
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
V
D
=
X
.
X
%
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
D
R
O
P
H..-X212 H..-X310 H..-X210
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
D
E
S
T
A
L
EXTERIOR SITE ELECTRICAL NOTES
A
2
1
1
W
.
L
E
D
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
(
1
0
L
E
D
s
)
T
Y
P
E
I
I
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
5
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
K
L
A
M
P
K
I
M
#
C
B
X
X
-
1
0
L
-
3
5
K
-
U
V
-
F
I
N
I
S
H
O
T
H
E
R
X
X
-
3
6
"
T
A
L
L
C
(
1
)
4
"
S
L
E
E
V
E
W
I
T
H
P
U
L
L
R
O
P
E
A
1
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
M
E
T
E
R
&
M
A
S
T
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
R
E
M
O
T
E
H
O
U
S
E
P
A
N
E
L
F
E
E
D
E
R
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
N
G
L
E
L
I
N
E
D
I
G
R
A
M
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
E
0
-
3
0
B
4
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
T
O
B
E
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
W
I
T
H
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
O
R
E
Q
U
A
L
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
3
5
0
0
°
K
.
W
I
T
H
S
O
L
I
D
T
O
P
A
N
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
N
S
B
O
T
T
O
M
E
D
G
E
O
F
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
1
2
W
.
L
E
D
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
-
(
1
2
0
0
L
U
M
E
N
M
I
N
.
)
T
O
B
E
A
T
O
R
A
B
O
V
E
+
7
'
-
0
"
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
O
C
C
U
R
A
T
E
V
E
R
Y
U
N
I
T
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
E
X
A
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
S
A
M
E
A
S
W
A
L
L
L
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
A
T
U
N
I
Q
U
E
B
2
1
0
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
I
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
I
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
A
4
1
4
F
T
P
O
L
E
(
4
"
D
I
A
.
)
3
0
0
0
°
K
L
A
M
P
5
3
W
L
E
D
P
O
L
E
L
I
G
H
T
(
T
Y
P
E
I
V
)
U
S
A
#
D
S
T
P
B
1
-
I
V
-
4
8
L
E
D
-
W
W
-
1
2
0
-
X
B
Z
-
P
M
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
2
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
(
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
3
#
1
0
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
0
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
2
#
1
2
T
H
H
N
/
T
H
W
N
-
2
-
C
U
&
1
#
1
2
C
U
-
G
N
D
I
N
3
/
4
"
S
C
H
.
4
0
P
V
C
.
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
2
H
.
.
-
X
3
1
0
H
.
.
-
X
2
1
0
1
F
U
T
U
R
E
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
T
U
R
E
D
U
A
L
E
V
C
H
A
R
G
E
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
F
R
O
N
T
S
I
D
E
0
.
5
1
.
8
2
.
2
1
.
1
0
.
9
2
.
5
1
.
8
1
.
6
2
.
4
1
.
7
1
.
5
2
.
2
1
.
9
1
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
7
1
.
5
0
.
8
1
.
6
0
.
8
1
.
7
1
.
2
2
.
3
2
.
1
1
.
9
2
.
0
2
.
4
1
.
1
1
.
6
0
.
8
1
.
6
1
.
0
2
.
4
2
.
1
2
.
1
2
.
3
2
.
1
1
.
2
2
.
1
2
.
0
1
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
9
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
0
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
.
2
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
6
1
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
7
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
4
0
.
8
1
.
4
0
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
1
.
2
0
.
7
1
.
0
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
3
1
.
1
0
.
7
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
5
0
.
3
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
3
1
.
4
0
.
8
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
3
1
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
6
1
.
0
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
3
1
.
6
0
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
4
1
.
3
0
.
9
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
8
1
.
1
1
.
6
1
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
5
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
3
1
.
5
0
.
9
2
.
1
1
.
7
1
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
4
1
.
2
1
.
7
1
.
6
1
.
0
0
.
6
1
.
7
0
.
9
1
.
7
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
4
1
.
6
1
.
5
1
.
2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
8
1
.
5
1
.
7
1
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
3
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
3
1
.
1
0
.
9
1
.
3
1
.
7
1
.
6
1
.
0
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
8
2
.
3
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
3
0
.
9
1
.
0
0
.
9
2
.
1
1
.
8
1
.
5
0
.
9
0
.
7
1
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
9
1
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
5
1
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
9
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
5
1
.
1
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
8
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
6
1
.
1
0
.
8
1
.
4
0
.
7
1
.
3
0
.
6
1
.
3
1
.
0
1
.
5
0
.
7
1
.
6
0
.
7
1
.
5
0
.
7
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
5
0
.
9
1
.
4
0
.
7
1
.
1
0
.
9
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
3
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
7
0
.
3
1
.
4
0
.
7
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
5
1
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
6
1
.
0
1
.
6
0
.
2
3
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
6
1
.
2
0
.
4
3
.
2
0
.
6
0
.
6
2
.
0
0
.
8
1
.
0
0
.
9
0
.
9
1
.
8
0
.
5
0
.
4
2
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
4
2
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
6
1
.
7
0
.
7
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
9
0
.
9
0
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
5
1
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
6
2
.
5
0
.
5
1
.
1
0
.
3
0
.
9
1
.
5
0
.
3
0
.
8
1
.
6
A1
C
C
C
C C
CCC
A
4
A
4
A
4
A
4
A
4
H
S
S
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
WESTSIDE DRIVE
"B" DRIVE
"
E
"
D
R
I
V
E
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
B
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
A
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
C
"
P
V
T
.
C
T
.
"
D
"
A1
A1
A
1
A
1
A1
A1
ANAHEIM, CA
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
|
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
2
7
2
0
1
C
a
l
l
e
J
u
a
n
i
t
a
D
a
n
a
P
o
i
n
t
,
C
A
9
2
6
2
4
P
h
.
9
4
9
.
2
0
1
.
1
3
3
3
c
a
n
d
e
l
a
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
L
E
N
N
A
R
2
5
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
0
A
L
I
S
O
V
I
E
J
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
6
5
6
C
L
I
E
N
T
:
S
T
A
M
P
:
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
H
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
A-TOWN
T
E
L
:
9
4
9
.
3
4
9
.
8
0
5
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
X
8
-
0
8
8
D
A
T
E
:
0
2
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
PARCEL H
1
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
E
P
-
2
0
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
P
-
1
0
2016000160063, O.R.
LLA No. LLA-0000739
Parcel 4
Linear Park(0.6 AC)
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
MERIDIAN
PARK STREET
STREET
KATELLA AVENUE
S
T
A
T
E
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
.
GENE AUTRY WAY
Public
Lot 1, TR 17703
Lot 2, TR 17703
Lot 3, TR 17703
Lot 5, TR 17703
Lot 4, TR 17703
Lot 7, TR 17703 Lot 6, TR 17703
Lot B, TR 17703
Public Park
(1.2 AC)
Lot A, TR 17703
P.
M
.
B
1
3
4
/
4
0
R.
S
.
B
.
1
9
/
1
1
R.S.B 30/26
PTN. OFPCL. 1
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
P.M.B 45/13PTN. OFPCL. 2
POR. PCL.BLOCK "A"P.M.B. 104/12
INST. NO.20020246230, O.R.
PCL. 10BLOCK "C"P.M.B. 104/12
PRIVATE WAY
05/08/2019
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
KATELLA AVENUE
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STOP SIGN
STREET LIGHT
STREET SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL CABINET
05/08/2019
KATELLA AVENUE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
STREET SIGN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FIRE HYDRANT
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
KATELLA AVENUE
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STREET SIGN
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
GENE AUTRY WAY
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE WAY
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
05/08/2019
GENE AUTRY WAY
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRACT
BOUNDARY
17703
CURB RAMP
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURE
STREET SIGN
STREET SIGN
05/08/2019
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net
May 1, 2019
Maria Korkosz
Project Manager So Cal Urban Division
Lennar
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Subject: A-Town Parking Management Plan
Dear Ms. Korkosz:
At your request, LSA has reviewed parking demand and supply for the A-Town Master Plan (project)
in Anaheim. In 2015, the City of Anaheim (City) approved the revised A-Town Master Plan and
entered into a Development Agreement with Lennar. At that time, the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use
Overlay Zone (Anaheim Municipal Code [AMC] Section 18.20.120) established residential parking
ratios that were different from AMC Section 18.42.030. Subsequent to approval of the A-Town
Master Plan and entering into the Development Agreement, the City has amended AMC Section
18.20.120, which now refers to AMC Section 18.42.030 for calculation of required residential
parking. However, the parking rates established at the time of approval of the A-Town Master Plan
apply to the subsequent final site plans for each development area (due to the Development
Agreement) and are attached to this report (Attachment A) for reference.
AMC Section 18.20.120.0104 states that “Parking located on a private or public street directly in
front of a use may be considered for parking credit, providing a parking management plan is
approved by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be limited to the use
that it is intended to serve.” The purpose of this letter is to provide a parking management plan
addressing how much street parking is needed to fulfill the parking requirement and how street
parking will be limited to the intended use.
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
The project consists of eight development areas (A through H) and two public parks (Aloe Greens
and Aloe Promenade). Development Area A has been constructed and is currently leasing. The
remaining development areas are in various stages of planning. Table A summarizes the planned
development in each development area and the arrangement for parking. As Table A shows, only
Development Areas F, G, and H contemplate the use of on-street parking to fulfill the parking
requirement for those development areas.
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 2
Table A: Development Area Summary
Development
Area Master Plan Density Final Site Plan
Density Parking Arrangement
On-Street Parking
used to Fulfill
Requirement?
A 392 to 403 DU 400 DU Structure No
B 165 to 281 DU and 21,000
to 25,000 sf commercial
165 to 281 DU and
21,000 to 25,000 sf
commercial
Structure No
C 160 to 272 DU and 17,000
to 25,000 sf commercial
160 to 272 DU and
17,000 to 25,000 sf
commercial
Structure No
D 140 to 217 DU 140 to 217 DU Structure No
E 62 to 217 DU 62 to 217 DU Structure No
F 70 to 132 DU 70 to 132 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
G 106 to 159 DU 154 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
H 90 to 99 DU 84 DU Individual garages
and surface parking
Yes
DU = dwelling units
sf = square feet
PARKING DEMAND
Parking demand can be calculated for some of the development areas that have final site plans.
Other development areas are still in planning stages where the quantity of parking demand is not
known, but the location of the parking being provided is known. Development Area A consists of 400
apartment dwelling units and has a parking requirement of 679 spaces. When the final site plans are
prepared for these Development Areas B, C, D, E, and F, parking demand will be determined using
the established residential parking rates based on the number of bedrooms per unit and the
commercial shopping center parking rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (sf) per the Anaheim
Municipal Code. All of the parking demand will be accommodated in the parking structures for
Development Areas B, C, D, and E. Development Area F will use a combination of individual garages,
on-site surface parking, and adjacent on-street parking to accommodate its parking demand.
The latest site plan for Development Area G indicates a total of 154 dwelling units comprising the
following:
• 22 one-bedroom units with one-car garages
• 88 two-bedroom units with two-car garages
• 44 three-bedroom units with two-car garages
The latest site plan for Development Area H indicates a total of 84 dwelling units, which consist of
the following:
• 56 three-bedroom units with two-car garages
• 28 four-bedroom units with two-car garages
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 3
Table B displays the parking demand for both Development Area G and Development Area H. As
Table B shows, Development Area G would require a total of 319 parking spaces and Development
Area H would require a total of 238 parking spaces.
Table B: Development Areas G and H Required Parking
Parking Rate Development Area G Development Area H
Units Required Parking Units Required Parking
Studio 1.25 0 0 0 0
1-bedroom 1.5 22 33 0 0
2-bedroom 2 88 176 0 0
3-bedroom 2.5 44 110 56 140
4-bedroom 3.5 0 0 28 98
Total 154 319 84 238
Public Park
A-Town includes a public park in the center of the community named Aloe Greens. A linear park
named Aloe Promenade is also within the community. Together, these public parks provide
approximately 1.8 acres. Users of the parks are anticipated to originate from within the Platinum
Triangle, predominantly from A-Town itself but also potentially from outside the A-Town
community. Users of the parks coming from within A-Town or from developments on the north side
of Katella Avenue could walk to the parks, but trips by car are also possible. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, Fourth Edition, provides parking demand data
based on observation of other city parks and identifies an average rate of 2.8 spaces per acre.
Therefore, the parking demand for this 1.8-acre park is anticipated to be 5 parking spaces
(i.e., 2.8 spaces/acre x 1.8 acres = 5.0 spaces).
Retail Commercial Uses
According to the Master Plan, Development Areas B and C may include up to 50,000 sf of retail/
commercial space. Based on the current preliminary plans, restaurants will comprise less than
40 percent of the total space. The Anaheim Municipal Code requires four spaces be provided per
1,000 sf of commercial shopping centers that contain 40 percent or less restaurant space. This
commercial parking demand will be provided in the off-street parking structures within each
development area.
PARKING SUPPLY
Parking is provided for the uses within A-Town in a combination of off-street parking areas and on-
street spaces.
As previously mentioned, Development Area A has been constructed. The parking structure at the
center of the development provides 718 parking spaces compared to the parking requirement for
679 parking spaces. It is not unusual for this to occur with structured parking, as it does not always
make sense to build a fraction of a parking level. Development Areas B, C, D, and E are planned to be
constructed with a central parking structure. When the final site plans are prepared for
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 4
Development Areas B, C, D, and E, it is intended that the parking structures on site would supply all
of the required parking.
The off-street parking supply in Development Area F is not known at this time; however, the final
site plan will be designed so that the required parking can be accommodated within the site and the
immediately adjacent on-street parallel parking spaces (estimated at 21 at this time but may
increase or decrease with the final site plan).
Development Area G will provide one-car garages for the 22 one-bedroom units and two-car
garages for the 132 two- and three-bedroom units. The final site plan for Development Area G
provides 286 parking spaces in residential garages and 22 surface parking spaces internal to the
development area for a total of 308 off-street parking spaces. Comparing the required parking of
319 spaces to the off-street parking supply reveals that 11 on-street parking spaces would be
required to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area G.
Development Area H will provide two-car garages for all 84 dwelling units. The final site plan for
Development Area H provides 168 parking spaces in residential garages and 46 surface parking
spaces internal to the development area for a total of 214 off-street parking spaces. Comparing the
required parking of 238 spaces to the off-street parking supply reveals that 24 on-street parking
spaces would be required to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area H.
Figure 1 displays on-street parking spaces throughout A-Town. As shown on Figure 1, three parking
areas totaling 58 parking spaces are near the parks (i.e., 23 spaces on the north side of Park Street,
29 spaces on the south side of Meridian Street, and 6 spaces on the west side of Market Street). An
additional 10 parking spaces are on Market Street adjacent to the ground floor commercial of
Development Area B. In total, this is 68 parking spaces adjacent to public serving uses (colored in
green on Figure 1).
Figure 1 displays, in blue, the 21 on-street parking spaces that may be used to fulfill the parking
requirement for Development Area F. The 11 on-street parking spaces used to fulfill the parking
requirement for Development Area G are shown along Union Street in red. The 24 on-street parking
spaces used to fulfill the parking requirement for Development Area H are shown in purple. Figure 1
also displays 43 additional on-street parking spaces in yellow (near Development Areas A, B, and D)
that are a buffer if residential guests choose not to park in off-street parking areas or during periods
of particularly high demand (e.g., an event in the parks).
Out of a total anticipated 167 on-street parking spaces, approximately 56 would be needed to fulfill
parking requirements.
Parking Plan
Streets within A-Town will be privately owned and maintained. None of the on-street parking spaces
on these private streets will be unrestricted. The yellow and green spaces (as shown in Figure 1) will
be subject to a time limitation and a prohibition on overnight parking. Blue, red, and purple spaces
(i.e., the spaces needed to fulfill parking requirements) would be marked “Reserved,” assigned by
each Development Area’s homeowners’ association (HOA) as a resident parking space, and signed
that unauthorized vehicles could be towed. Within Development Area G, the 22 surface parking
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 5
spaces would be available to overnight guests of the development. Within Development Area H, 25
of the 46 surface parking spaces would be assigned to residents by the HOA and 21 of the surface
parking spaces would be available to overnight guests of the development.
This arrangement eases the burden of enforcement as drivers are less likely to park in a space
marked “Reserved” or within an HOA community where they are not a guest. Drivers are aware that
parking restrictions in both of these types of parking space are more likely to be enforced. Further,
the likelihood of mistakenly towing a vehicle is greatly reduced when the resident whose space it is
reports the offending vehicle.
Time limitations on the remainder of the on-street parking spaces may be constant throughout the
year, or may be longer to better accommodate resident guests but reduced during baseball games
or other large events at Angel Stadium. The time limitation would be set to discourage patrons of
the stadium from parking along streets within the community. An additional mechanism for
discouraging stadium parking could be to set the overnight parking prohibition to begin at
10:00 p.m., which is prior to the end of most baseball games. Setting the time limitations will require
the community to find out which restriction is most effective, which may vary over time. It should be
noted that the closest on-street parking spaces to the stadium would be the blue, red, and purple
spaces that would be marked “Reserved.”
PARKING DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The analysis provided above demonstrates that a sufficient number of parking spaces are provided
to accommodate the anticipated parking demand if vehicles are parked where they are anticipated
to park. This section provides techniques for reducing the number of vehicles competing for the
limited supply of parking spaces. This includes efficient use of the loading area and accurately priced
parking. The following section outlines the methods of ensuring that vehicles park in their
designated spaces.
Additional Use of Loading Area
Development Area G includes a 65-foot move-in loading area along Union Street. Development Area
G proposes for-sale residential units. The turnover of for-sale residential units is likely to occur less
frequently than rental units. Therefore, this Parking Management Plan includes an additional use of
the loading area for the purpose of managing parking demand.
Use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft has increased dramatically
in a short period of time. In 2014, TNCs provided a total of 190 million rides in the United States. By
2016, the number of rides had increased to 2.2 billion. As this market grows, evolves, and matures,
the availability of TNCs could reduce the number of cars needed by a household. To facilitate this
mobility option, thereby potentially reducing parking demand by residents and their guests, the
loading area along Union Street will be available for TNC drop-off and pickup when not fully
occupied by the loading or unloading of household goods.
Self-Storage
Innovation has also resulted in changes to the self-storage industry. While in the past the
transportation of items to and from a storage facility was the burden of the renter, many companies
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 6
now offer portable storage containers that are transported to and from the residence by the storage
company. Facilitating the off-site storage of bulky or excess items helps to preserve garage parking
spaces for use by automobiles. The HOA may determine (seasonally or permanently based on need)
to designate the loading areas and trash collection areas as delivery and pickup areas for portable
storage containers. On at least an annual basis, the HOA will provide a list of on-site self-storage and
portable storage container companies servicing the development. Attachment B provides a partial
list of companies currently serving Anaheim.
Parking Allocation
Garage parking spaces will be owned by the residential unit. Surface parking within the residential
communities and adjacent street parking will be owned by the HOAs. The HOAs will have the
authority to assign these parking spaces to specific residential units or designate them as unassigned
spaces open to residents or the guests of residents. The HOAs may establish a process for assigning
parking spaces that includes verification that the residential unit is using garage space to park
vehicles and a provision that the assigned overflow surface parking space could be forfeited if
garage space is not used for parking. Assuring that garage parking spaces are used first can manage
total parking demand (for example, by discouraging the use of garage space for storage of bulky or
excess items). Prevention of spillover parking demand through enforcement is discussed in the
following section.
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
The A-Town project is creating streets internal to the project site that will be privately owned and
maintained. Signage at each entrance to A-Town will inform drivers that streets are private and to
be used subject to restricted use. Residents of A-Town, guests of A-Town residents, and visitors to
the Aloe Greens and Aloe Promenade parks should be the only sources of demand for any parking
spaces within A-Town. However, as discussed above, A-Town is within walking distance of Angel
Stadium and, if no restrictions are placed on on-street parking within A-Town, these parking spaces
may be attractive to stadium visitors seeking to avoid parking fees. The City also has experienced
resident parking demand encroaching into guest parking areas. Ensuring the on-street parking
spaces are available to guests requires that residents and stadium visitors be prevented from
parking in green and yellow (as shown on Figure 1) on-street parking spaces.
Parking enforcement within the private streets will be the responsibility of the HOAs, and would
encompass two areas: on-site parking spaces, and parking on private streets. The Development Area
HOAs will have an active role in controlling off-street parking within their development area and the
assigned on-street spaces (i.e., blue, red, and purple spaces). This will include Parking Demand
Management as described above, ensuring garages are used for parking, and enforcing the
allocation of surface parking internal to the development. The Master HOA will be responsible for
regular patrols and citations of illegally parked vehicles on the private streets.
Garage Parking and Internal Parking Spaces
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for residential units within Development Areas
F, G, and H shall include specific limitations on the use of garages. These limitations will, at a
minimum, include:
DR
A
F
T
5/1/19 «P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx» 7
• A requirement that residents shall use garages only for the parking of operable vehicles
• A restriction on the use of garages for temporary or permanent living space, regardless of the
number of vehicles the owner possesses
• A restriction on the use of garages for storage of items that would prevent the parking of the
number of vehicles for which the garage is designed
• A provision that garages are subject to inspection by the HOA
• A statement that the HOA may assign resident parking spaces and that the HOA has the
authority to enforce the proper use of the resident parking spaces by levying fines against
owners who fail to properly utilize their garages to house the allocated number of vehicles
• A restriction of resident parking in designated guest parking areas
• A provision that the HOA has the authority to establish time limitations on use of guest parking
spaces or to limit use of parking spaces to vehicles displaying parking passes issued by the HOA
or designee
• A provision that areas designated for trash collection not be used for parking during the times
posted in the trash collection area
• A requirement that each owner inform their family members and that lessees are informed of
the provisions of the CC&Rs, parking rules and restrictions, and enforcement authority
• A provision that the HOA has the right to enforce parking restrictions and garage parking
requirements through the assessment of fines on HOA members, subject to the HOAs rules, or
towing
• 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 internal parking, including
inspection of garages and towing
• A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs related to internal parking shall
be submitted for review to the City Engineer or designee and shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer or designee prior to the amendment being valid
On-Street Parking
The approximately 56 on-street parking spaces needed to fulfill the parking requirements of
Development Areas F (approximately 21 spaces, with the final number based on the final site plan),
G (11 spaces), and H (24 spaces) would be marked “Reserved” and signed that unauthorized vehicles
are subject to towing. If a resident sees an unauthorized vehicle parked in their assigned space, they
would have a vested interest in calling the HOA for enforcement of the parking restriction and
towing. The remaining 111 on-street parking spaces would have time limitations and a prohibition
on overnight parking. The Master HOA would have the ability to enforce the time limitation through
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Development Area A
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
C
Develop
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
B
Develo
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
H
G
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
F
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
E
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
D
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
Public Linear Park MARKET STREET
UNION STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVE
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
K
A
T
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
STATE COLLEGE BLVD.
G
E
N
E
A
U
T
R
Y
W
A
Y
LOADING
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
/
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
,
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
(
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(Medium D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
F
o
r
-
S
a
l
e
)
(High Dens
i
t
y
/
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
,
Structur
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
(High Density, For-Rent,Structured Parking,LOADINGLOADINGAll Parking On-site)All Parki
n
g
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
)
LOADING
LOADING
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
A
-
T
O
W
N
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
S
H
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
P
-
1
D
R
A
F
T
P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN
M AY 2019
A-T OWN D EVELOPMENT
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx «05/01/19»
ATTACHMENT A
AMC SECTION 18.20.120 AT THE TIME OF MASTER PLAN APPROVAL
DR
A
F
T
6/1/2016 ALP
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning/chapter1820platinumtrianglemixeduseptmuo?f=templates$fn=altmainnf.htm$q=[field…1/2
18.20.120 PARKING, LOADING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS.
.010 Number of Parking Spaces.
.0101 Number of Spaces for Residential Uses. The following minimum parking requirements shall be used in determining
parking need:
Table 20I
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE
Total Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Per Unit
Studio 1.25 spaces
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces
2 bedroom 2.0 spaces
3 bedroom 2.5 spaces
4 bedroom 3.5 spaces
.0102 Number of Spaces for NonResidential Uses. The number of parking spaces for nonresidential uses shall be determined
by the type of use (use class) specified in Table 42A (NonResidential Parking Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and
Loading).
.0103 Number of Spaces for MixedUse Projects. Due to variations in parking demand and the needs of each project, vehicle
parking requirements, the demand for dropoff and pickup locations and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and
egress, shall be determined as part of the final site plan review process by the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department
based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, as approved by the
Planning Services Division of the Planning Department and/or its designee. The parking demand study shall be prepared at the
property owner/developer’s expense and provided as part of the final site plan application.
.0104 OnStreet Parking. Parking located on a private or public street directly in front of a use may be considered for parking
credit; providing a parking management plan is approved by the City Engineer, which adequately addresses how parking will be
limited to the use that it is intended to serve. Diagonal and perpendicular parking shall be in conformance with Chapter
18.20.120.040.
.0105 Tandem Parking. Tandem parking spaces of not more than two (2) vehicles deep shall be permitted provided that (i) such
tandem parking spaces are enclosed or covered parking spaces, and (ii) both spaces are assigned to the same designated dwelling
unit.
.0106 Valet Parking. Valet parking may be permitted in conjunction with subterranean parking, provided valet services are
provided for and managed by an onsite management company or homeowner’s association.
.0107 Dropoff and PickUp Locations. Dropoff and pickup locations shall be incorporated into the design of parking areas,
and the number, location and design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
.020 Designation of Parking for Residential and NonResidential Uses. Parking spaces specifically designated for nonresidential
and residential uses shall be marked by the use of posting, pavement markings, and/or physical separation. Parking design shall
incorporate separate entrances and exits, or a designated lane, for residents, so that residents are not waiting in line behind non
residential drivers.
.030 Vehicle Access. All vehicle access shall be designed and improved in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.
.0301 Primary Vehicle Access. Parcels located adjacent to connector or collector streets shall have their primary vehicle access
off of said streets.
.0302 Minimum Distance Between Driveways of Arterials. The minimum distance between adjacent driveways on the same
site or adjacent properties located along arterials shall be not less than three hundred and fifty (350) feet, except as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
.0303 Vehicular Access from Katella Avenue. When two or more parcels or lots located adjacent to Katella Avenue are
DR
A
F
T
6/1/2016 ALP
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning/chapter1820platinumtrianglemixeduseptmuo?f=templates$fn=altmainnf.htm$q=[field…2/2
considered as a single, integrated development, additional driveways may be permitted, subject to the Standard Driveway Detail
requirements of the Public Works Department.
.0304 Driveway Width Dimensions. Driveways shall be a minimum of twentyfour (24) feet wide, and a maximum of thirty
five (35) feet wide, in order to enhance the pedestrian experience. Wider widths may be allowed if pedestrian circulation is not
significantly compromised, subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic and Transportation Manager, based on sound engineering
practices.
.040 Streets. As provided in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, connector and collector streets and a Market Street will
be required within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The location of these streets shall be in conformance with the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer, based on an access and alignment study. Additional connector streets
may be required by the City Engineer, based on projected traffic volumes as determined by a traffic study.
.0401 The streets shall be designed to comply with the cross sections in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; provided
that the final width, including supplemental turn lanes if required, shall be determined, based on anticipated traffic volumes analyzed
as part of a project specific traffic impact study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
.0402 Trafficcalming and special street design features, such as enhanced paving and parkway tapers at intersections, are
permitted and encouraged, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
.0403 Diagonal and perpendicular parking may be permitted on Connector Streets subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
.050 Loading Areas. Offstreet loading spaces shall be provided as follows:
.0501 Nonresidential uses offstreet loading requirements shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.42.100 (Loading
Requirements) of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading).
.0502 Residential Uses.
.01 Residential uses shall have one (1) offstreet loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units.
.02 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators.
.03 Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access areas.
.04 Decorative paving, removable bollards and potted plants are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or
moving plazas.
.05 Loading spaces or moving plazas may be located on a local or connector street, with the approval of the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager. The adjacent parkway and setback landscape treatment shall be designed to allow for loading and
unloading.
(Ord. 5935 § 1 (part); August 24, 2004: Ord. 6001 § 1 (part); November 8, 2005: Ord. 6101 § 13; April 22, 2008: Ord. 6103 § 1
(part); April 22, 2008: Ord 6120 § 4 (part); October 28, 2008: Ord. 6192 § 1 (part); November 9, 2010: Ord. 6213 §§ 1, 2; June 7,
2011: Ord. 6317 § 8; March 3, 2015: Ord. 6344, §§ 7 9; October 20, 2015.)DR
A
F
T
P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN
M AY 2019
A-T OWN D EVELOPMENT
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\LMC1801\Parking\ATown Parking Management Plan7.docx «05/01/19»
ATTACHMENT B
PARTIAL LIST OF PORTABLE STORAGE COMPANIES SERVING ANAHEIM
Haulaway Storage
11292 Western Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Storage Valet
341 Bonnie Circle, Suite 101A
Corona, CA 92880
SMARTBOX of Los Angeles
19627 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 101
Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220
Box-n-Go Storage
Corporate Office
5934 East Slauson Avenue
Commerce, CA 90040
1-800-Pack-Rat
Clutter
www.clutter.com
(855) 689-6141
MI-BOX of Orange County
18262 Enterprise Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PODS
25392 Commercecenter Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
DR
A
F
T
2016000160063, O.R.
LLA No. LLA-0000739
Parcel 4
Linear Park
(0.6 AC)
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
MERIDIAN
PARK STREET
STREET
KATELLA AVENUE
S
T
A
T
E
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
.
GENE AUTRY WAY
Public
Lot 1, TR 17703
Lot 2, TR 17703
Lot 3, TR 17703
Lot 5, TR 17703
Lot 4, TR 17703
Lot 7, TR 17703
Lot 6, TR 17703
Lot B, TR 17703
Public Park
(1.2 AC)
Lot A, TR 17703
P.
M
.
B
1
3
4
/
4
0
R.
S
.
B
.
1
9
/
1
1
R.S.B 30/26
PTN. OF
PCL. 1
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
P.M.B 45/13
PTN. OF
PCL. 2
POR. PCL.
BLOCK "A"
P.M.B. 104/12
INST. NO.
20020246230, O.R.
PCL. 10
BLOCK "C"
P.M.B. 104/12
PRIVATE WAY
05/08/2019
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STOP SIGN
STREET LIGHT
STREET SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL CABINET
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
STREET SIGN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FIRE HYDRANT
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
KATELLA AVENUE
M
E
T
R
O
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
STREET SIGN
STREET LIGHT
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
GENE AUTRY WAY
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIVATE WAY
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
CURB RAMP
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CROSSWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
GENE AUTRY WAY
W
E
S
T
S
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
PRIVATE STREET
PUBLIC STREET
WITH MAINTENANCE OF
PARKWAYS BY A-TOWN
MASTER ASSOCIATION PER
MAINTENANCE COVENANT.
STREET LIGHT
TRACT
BOUNDARY
17703
CURB RAMP
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURE
STREET SIGN
STREET SIGN
05/08/2019
DR
A
F
T
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
5
Irvine Office
2030 Main Street, 12th Floor
Irvine, California 92614
t 949.752.8585 f
949.752.0597
Westlake Village Office
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite
200
Westlake Village, California
91361
t 805.230.0023 f
805.230.0087
www.jacksontidus.law
January 25, 2019
Direct Dial:
Email:
Reply to:
File No:
949.851.7607
gpowers@jacksontidus.law
Irvine Office
9477-121880
VIA EMAIL (SKoehm@Anaheim.net) AND U.S. MAIL
Scott Koehm, Senior Planner
Planning and Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Units for Area H of Master Site Plan for A-Town Project
Dear Scott:
As you know, we represent PT Metro, LLC (“Lennar”) in connection with the A-Town
Project (“Project”) in the City of Anaheim (“City”). Lennar seeks to construct 84 residential
units in Development Area H under the existing Master Site Plan and the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 (“DA”), but currently, the Exhibit “I” of the DA,
entitled “Development Summary Table,” provides a target unit range of 90-99 units for
Development Area H. Below please find a list of reasons and support under the DA to allow
Lennar to construct 84 residential units in Area H:
1) Section 7 and Exhibit “I” of the DA provides a minimum unit count of 1,400 units
and a maximum unit count of 1,746 for the entire Project. Lennar’s requested change to Area H
will not affect these minimum and maximum unit counts for the Project.
2) Section 10 of the DA, entitled “Transfer of Development Rights,” expressly
contemplates changing unit counts in Development Areas of the Master Site Plan. It even allows
for transfers of units between Development Areas until such time that a Final Site Plan is
approved for a particular Development Area, and at that time, that particular Development
Area’s unit count becomes “fixed” for that Development Area. Development Area H does not
have an approved Final Site Plan yet, therefore the restriction on changing unit counts does not
yet apply to Development Area H.
3) Exhibit “I” of the DA provides for “Target Development Ranges for Development
Areas.” (Emphasis added.) If the intention of the Parties to the DA was to require strict
adherence to the unit ranges listed in Exhibit “I,” the DA would specify that by simply using the
word “Mandatory” instead of “Target,” or by not including the word “Target” at all. Here, it is
clear that strict adherence to the unit ranges provided in Exhibit “I” is not required because of the
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
Scott Koehm, Senior Planner
City of Anaheim
January 25, 2019
Page 2
inclusion of the word “target” so long as the minimum number of units for the Project (1,400
units) and maximum number of units (1,746) are adhered to.
4) The intent of using the word “target” is to provide flexibility beyond what is listed
in the Exhibit. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “target” as “a goal to be achieved.” Thus,
a “target” is akin to a “goal,” and a goal “is neither a requirement nor a quota.” (PegaStaff v.
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 1303, 1310 [emphasis added].) The phrase
“target” should not be interpreted as requiring or mandating a prescribed result; rather, the
common and ordinary reading of the word “target” is synonymous with a “goal.”
5) The fact that the word “target” should be interpreted as a goal rather than a mandate
or quota is further evidenced by the fact that Section 10 states that unit counts in each
Development Area are not “locked in” until a Final Site Plan is approved for that Area, and the
fact that there is a range of 346 units between the minimum and maximum number of units for
the overall Project. Thus, if the Project was reduced to the minimum number of units (1,400), it
would require that several, if not all, of the “target” unit ranges provided in Exhibit “I” would not
be met.
6) Exhibit “I” provides a target unit range of 90-99 units for Area H, and Lennar seeks
to construct 84 units in Area H. This only results in 6 fewer units than the “target” unit range for
Area H. Additionally, with the extra units being placed in Area G for a total of 154 units, Lennar
would be only 5 units short of the maximum number of units for Area G. Thus, when Areas G
and H are combined, it results in a total number or residential units that well exceed the
minimum number of units required by the Master Site Plan for Areas G and H.
7) Construction of 84 units instead of 90 units in Area H will not affect or require any
changes to Exhibit “G” of the DA, which provides unit count milestones in order to receive DA
extensions.
8) Lennar expressly acknowledges and agrees that the DA requires a minimum of
1,400 units in the Project, and Lennar will not seek to go below this minimum unit count for the
Project.
9) Lennar understands and agrees that in the unlikely event that it makes an additional
future requests to reduce unit counts Areas in the Project below the Target Development Ranges
in Exhibit “I” of the DA, the City reserves the right to require City Council approval if City staff
feels there is any risk that the Project could drop below the minimum unit count of 1,400, or if
any request to reduce units in a Project Area would result in a unit count that is significantly
lower than the Target Development Range specified in Exhibit “I” of the DA. The City and
Lennar agree that the current request to reduce the unit count in Area H by six units is not a
“significant” reduction or deviation from the Target Development Range specified for Area H in
Exhibit “I,” and therefore approval of the proposed reduction for Area H can be approved
administratively.
Scott Koehm, Senior Planner
City of Anaheim
January 25, 2019
Page 3
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please don’t
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gregory P. Powers
cc: Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney* (LMulvihill@Anaheim.net)
Maria Korkosv, Lennar California Coastal Division* (Maria.Korkosv@Lennar.com)
Ted Frattone, Hunsaker and Associates* (TFrattone@Hunsaker.com)
*via email only
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339
AND ADDENDA
On October 26, 2010, the City Council City Council certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" (FSEIR No. 339) in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, and related zoning
reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the PTMU Overlay
Zone to allow up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Three addenda to EIR No. 339 have been subsequently approved in connection with the Katella
Avenue/I-5 undercrossing improvements and revisions to the Platinum Gateway and Platinum
Vista projects. These projects included changes to the maximum permitted development intensity,
which now permits up to 19,027 residential uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 has been prepared to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the proposed A-Town Development Area H Project were fully-disclosed by FSEIR No.
339 or if a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary for this project. The analysis in FSEIR
No. 339 included anticipated build-out of the previously-approved A-Town Metro Project. As more
thoroughly described in the Addendum, the proposed A-Town Project is considered to be a
refinement of the development assumptions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and will not require any
major revisions to the Final EIR.
FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved
in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the proposed A-
Town Project, are available on the City’s website at: http://www.anaheim.net/1075/Report-
Number-339.
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
- 1-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN 2018-00005
SITE
ADDRESS: Northwest corner of Gene Autry Way and Union Street, Anaheim, CA
APN: 232-121-35
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Gene Autry Way and Westside Drive
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural & Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the
Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
May 22, 2019
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Susan Kim, Principal Planner (714) 765-4958
Printed Name, Title Phone Number
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
- 2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is
made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than
Significant impacts”.
d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening
analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration (§ 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General
Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
- 3-
Project Setting
The approximate 4.5-acre project site (referred to as the “Project Site” or “Project Area” in this document),
is known as Development Area H of the A-Town Master Site Plan, and located at the northeast corner of
Gene Autry Way and Westside Drive. The project site is part of A-Town's Master Site Plan entitlements and
is allocated for residential development in the range of 90 to 99 total dwelling units (20-22 dwelling units per
acre). The existing land use consists of vacant mass graded pad. The property's surrounding land uses consist
of the future Aloe Promenade (A-Town Linear Park) to the east, Gene Autry Way with the Jefferson Stadium
Park development beyond to the south, Westside Drive with the Core apartments (Development Area A)
beyond to the west and Meridian Street with the future A-Town Development Area B beyond to the north.
Background
In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update
that established a new vision for the Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update
created new land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for existing,
largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. This General
Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which
at that time permitted up to 9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses.
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and the
PTMU Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum Triangle. Under these updated zoning
regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement between property owners and the
City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone. For projects over twelve acres, a
Master Site Plan may be approved in lieu of a Final Site Plan, as is the case with this development
application. A Master Site Plan typically identifies the development proposal in a broad scope, depicting
street layouts, development areas and infrastructure improvement areas. A Final Site Plan provides greater
detail including plans for the specific buildings, parking areas, landscaping and other improvements. In
order to implement a Master Site Plan, a developer is required to subsequently submit a Final Site Plan for
each building that is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332
(FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP and Zoning
Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum
Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of
commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of the related
actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC to construct the A-
Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential units; 150,000 square feet of
commercial uses; two public parks; and, a network of local streets. An addendum to FSEIR 332 was
prepared and approved as part of the A-Town Metro Project. On November 8, 2005, City Council approved
a Development Agreement for the A-Town Metro Project, which was recorded on December 13, 2005. On
December 16, 2008, City Council approved an amendment to the Development Agreement to allow
additional time to complete certain milestones. The amended Development Agreement was recorded on
February 23, 2009.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
(FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, PTMU
Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within
the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet
of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
- 4-
Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum
development intensities to up to 17,501 residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in conjunction with its
approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone, and an amended and
restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan for the revised A-Town Metro
Project. This revised project permitted development of between 1,400 and 1.746 residential units, and
between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets
within the A-Town Metro Project area. The City Council also approved the Final Site Plan for the first
phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a 400-unit apartment project with a 6-story parking structure in
Development Area A.
The subject 43.1-acre A-Town site consists of the same property approved for the A-Town Metro Project.
The property is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates
this property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The property is surrounded by multi-family and commercial
uses to the north across Katella Avenue; industrial, office, residential and commercial uses to the east;
residential property to the south across Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. The subject
property is currently undeveloped but was “rough-graded” and improved with the majority of the
infrastructure for the previously approved A-Town Metro Project. Additionally, the first phase of the A-
Town development, Development Area A located to the east of the subject property, has been development
with 400 apartment units.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct the third phase of the A-Town development in Development Area H
with 84 dwelling units in 28 triplex townhomes with a residential density of 18.8 dwelling units per net acre.
Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include
landscape walkways, an open space area off Gene Autry Way, and a recreation center. The recreation center
will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the
residents. The units will range in size from approximately 1,975 square feet to 2,295 square feet.
The project would consist of 28 triplex buildings. Each building would consist of three attached townhome
product types for 84 total dwelling units. The unit mix will consist of 56 3-bedroom townhomes and 28 4-
bedroom townhomes. The contemporary architectural style includes three elevation types and the buildings
would front on Westside Drive, Meridian Street and the Aloe Promenade linear park to create an attractive
and active street scene, which include entry stoops, balconies, building articulation, architectural details, and
varied rooflines and building materials.
Parking for the proposed project will comply with the Code requirements for that were in place at the time
the Council approved the Development Agreement for the A-Town Master Site Plan. The City Council has
subsequently adopted higher parking requirements for the Platinum Triangle that are consistent with the
parking requirements for multi-family housing throughout the City; however, the City cannot apply the new
requirements to the proposed project because the Development Agreement “locks in” the Code requirements
in place at the time of the approval of the Development Agreement.
The proposed project will provide two garage spaces per unit. The residents and their guests also have access
to 46 additional parking spaces on-site and 24 on-street parking spaces along Westside Drive and Meridian
Street. Collectively, the 168 garage spaces, 46-on-site spaces, and 24 on-street spaces supply 238 parking
spaces; Code requires 238 spaces for the proposed project.
Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
- 5-
This environmental document is a checklist to identify whether Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 (SEIR No. 339) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, adopted in October
2010 by the City of Anaheim (City) and its subsequent addenda, have adequately analyzed the potential
impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and that no further environmental
review is necessary.
SEIR No. 339 was prepared to address the implementation of the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan
(PTIP) and discretionary approvals associated with the Approved Project: General Plan Amendment No.
2008‐00471, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), amendments to the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, Zoning Reclassification No. 2008‐00222, and the Platinum
Triangle Water Supply Assessment. SEIR No. 339 addressed the potential impacts associated with
aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing,
public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gas
emissions. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant and
unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Approved Project.
Eight Addenda have been previously prepared to address modifications to the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project for the project changes listed below:
Addendum 1—Katella Avenue/Interstate 5 Undercrossing Improvement Project (April 2012):
Widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with Interstate 5 (I‐5) between Anaheim Way and
Manchester Avenue and create a fourth through lane of traffic in each direction of travel. Maintain
dual left‐turn pockets at both intersections. The Project Area spans approximately 1,000 feet along
Katella Avenue, with an area of disturbance encompassing approximately 1.95 acres.
Addendum 2—Platinum Gateway Project (December 2012): Develop a four‐story wrap‐style
residential building with 399 dwelling units, a five‐story parking structure, and a public park on
7.01 acres. Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to increase the total number of dwelling
units to 18,988 dwelling units; reduce the commercial square footage to 4,795,111 square feet
(sf); and reduce the office square footage to 14,131,103 sf. No change to institutional uses
(1,500,000 sf).
Addendum 3—Platinum Vista Apartments Project (August 2015): Develop a five‐story wrap‐ style
residential apartment building with 389 units and a six‐story parking structure (including one
subterranean parking level). Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to allow up to 19,027
dwelling units, 4,735,111 sf of commercial uses, 14,131,103 sf of office uses, and 1,500,000 sf of
institutional uses
Addendum 4—Amended A‐Town Metro Master Site Plan (August 2015): Construct eight
neighborhood development areas ranging in size from 3.1 acres to 5.6 acres on the 43.2‐acre site.
Develop between 1,400 and 1,746 residential dwelling units, up to 50,000 sf of commercial/ retail
uses, and two public parks.
Addendum 5—Jefferson Stadium Park Project (June 2016): Develop a mixed‐use community with
1,079 residential apartments, 14,600 sf of retail uses, and a 1.11‐acre public park. Building 1 is a
five‐story wrap‐style building with 370 units; Building 2 is a five‐story wrap‐style building with
376 units; and Building 3 is a four‐story podium building with 333 units and 14,600 sf of retail
space. Amend the General Plan to relocate and combine two park sites into one park site. Amend
the PTMLUP to allow for 18,909 dwelling units, 4,909,682 sf of commercial uses, 14,340,522 sf of
office uses, and 1,500,000 sf of institutional uses.
Addendum 6—LT Platinum Center Development Project (September 2016): Mixed‐use
development with 405 dwelling units, 433,000 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial uses, a
- 6-
200‐room hotel, and 77,000 gsf of office uses. Amend the General Plan and the PTMLUP to
revise the district boundaries to change the LT Platinum Center site from the Gateway District to
the Stadium District. Reduce the maximum dwelling units to 17,348 units. Increase the maximum
commercial uses to 4,782,243 sf. Reduce the maximum office space to 9,180,747 sf. Remove the
designation of a public park from the site.
Addendum 7—Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard Improvements Project (March 2017):
Widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater
improvements; widen the west side of State College Boulevard between Gateway Office and
Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make
improvements to the east side of the intersection of State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way,
which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on
Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access to planned development areas.
Addendum 8 - The widening of Orangewood Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a
six‐lane divided primary arterial between State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57).
The project included an extension of the Class II Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of
State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit (via West Dupont Drive and private properties).
However, SEIR No. 339 did not specifically address the detailed features of the roadway
improvements, improvements to the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking lot, or an interim
condition for Orangewood Avenue that does not include the installation of landscaped medians and
a monument entry sign. Therefore, Addendum 8 was prepared to analyze these specific detailed
features.
- 7-
A-Town Infrastructure Development
- 8-
Development Area H Site Plan (Reduced Building Separations Shown in Red)
- 9-
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic
expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 339 determined that the overall boundaries of the Platinum Triangle
do not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide undisturbed or unique vistas, and/or that are officially
recognized by a local, State, or federal agency.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no officially recognized local, State, or federal‐level scenic resources are located in the
Platinum Triangle. The only Officially Designated State Scenic Highway segment of highway located close to the Platinum
Triangle is State Route 91 (SR‐91) from State Route 55 (SR‐55) to east of the City limits. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
Platinum Triangle would not be easily visible from SR‐91 due to distance and obstructive sound walls. There are no scenic
resources located in the Platinum Triangle; therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly impact a scenic resource. In
addition, the Proposed Project would not include tall structures that would obscure views of scenic resources. Additionally,
the Proposed Project would not be visible from the Officially Designated Scenic Highway segment of SR‐91 due to
obstruction by nearby development and sound walls surrounding the highway. For these reasons, no impacts to scenic
resources would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings associated with the
proposed development in the Platinum Triangle, including the changes in residential and nonresidential land uses and
modifications to the existing circulation system. Findings in SEIR No. 339 confirmed that compliance with provisions of the
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) would result in the creation of individual projects that are compatible
with the existing and future land uses within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 discussed impacts related to shade and
shadows, including shade and shadows potentially generated by the medium‐ to high‐rise structures allowed in the Platinum
Triangle. The SEIR concluded that impacts to the visual character or quality of the Platinum Triangle would be less than
significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 1‐1, which required analysis of shade on properties
sensitive to shadows for individual projects proposed within the Platinum Triangle. Many iconic buildings and structures
exist in the area surrounding the Project Area that provide landmarks to orient residents and visitors and provide the City
with a visual image and aesthetic. Two examples provided in SEIR No. 339 include the large “A” outside Angel Stadium of
Anaheim and the Honda Center. The Proposed Project would not create barriers to viewing or obscure visibility of
prominent local landmarks from the Project Area.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts related to the creation of light and glare. The buildout of the area would introduce many
new sources of nighttime illumination related to buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, roadways, and parks. The
proposed development will consist of 28 triplex townhome buildings (three dwellings attached per building) for a total of 84
dwelling units with a residential density of 18.8 dwelling units per acre (18.9 dwelling units per acre with proposed lot line
adjustment). Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include
landscape walkways, pocket parks, a recreation center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with
barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the residents. According to SEIR No.339, the light and glare impacts would
be minimized through compliance with the PTMLUP. In addition, light fixtures would include shielding to minimize light
- 10-
and glare.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with scenic vistas would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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 §
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. SEIR No. 339 concluded that
the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on agricultural resources and no mitigation was necessary. The 2014
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the Project Area as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Additionally, there
are no active farming activities within the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect any Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance due to the extent of
urbanization in the area. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339, and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no areas zoned for agriculture exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity.
Additionally, no lands covered by existing Williamson Act contracts are located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339
concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. There are no areas zoned
for agriculture or covered under Williamson Act contracts within the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
not impact land zoned for agricultural use or covered by a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation is required. The
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss, conversion, or rezoning of forestland. The Platinum Triangle is
- 11-
substantially developed and is not suitable for forestry and/or timber resources. There is no zoning for forest land in the City
of Anaheim and no areas within the City classified as forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526. The City of Anaheim has no land zoned for forest or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict
with any existing zoning for forest or timberland and would not cause rezoning of any forest or timberland. No impacts to
forest or timberland would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Proposed Project would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss or conversion of forestland. However, the Platinum Triangle does
not support forestry and/or timber resources. The Project Site is highly urbanized and not zoned for forest or timberlands.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing forest or timberland and would not cause loss or conversion
of any forest or timberland. No impacts to forest land would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest/timberlands are present in the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339
determined that no areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or
surrounding vicinity. Additionally, no existing Williamson Act contracts cover land within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No.
339 concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. No areas zoned for
agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not impact agricultural practices or any agriculturally zoned lands within the Project Area and no
mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with scenic vistas would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
- 12-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses all of Orange County (County)
and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB regional emissions inventory is compiled
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG). SEIR No. 339 states that the Approved Project would result in overall increased trips and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) in the Platinum Triangle area due to increased density of development. Although there would be an increase in trips
and VMT locally, the Approved Project would provide a net benefit to the SCAG region because it creates mixed‐ use
residential development closer to employment centers. This decreases average trip length because employment, services, and
housing would all be located in close proximity to each other. This also reduces the need for the residents to travel long
distances for commercial and entertainment centers. The Adopted PTMLUP was determined to be consistent with SCAG’s
strategies to reduce VMT in the region and was determined to be consistent with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), which was applicable to the Approved Project. Therefore, the impacts relative to project consistency with the
AQMP are considered less than significant in SEIR No. 339.
SCAQMD has thresholds which are used to evaluate a project’s emissions and determine if there would be a potential
significant impact related to construction or operation of the project. SCAQMD suggests that lead agencies evaluate both
regional and localized impacts for the project. The City uses the thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as updated in 2015). SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the Approved
Project would potentially violate air quality standards or contribute to existing or future air quality violations. The
construction and operational activities associated with the Approved Project would result in a substantial increase in
short‐ and long‐term air pollutants. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9
to reduce the potential air quality impacts. The mitigation measures focus on improving the efficiency of vehicles and
require the use of materials in responsible ways to limit the release of pollutants that may violate existing air quality
standards for the Platinum Triangle area and the County during construction and operation of the Approved Project.
However, even with these mitigation measures, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the Approved Project would potentially result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standards (ozone [O3], particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10], and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in size [PM2.5]). SEIR No. 339 found that the construction and operational activities associated with the
Approved Project would create short‐ and long‐term pollutants exceeding the regional significance thresholds established by
SCAQMD, including PM10, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX)
from construction, and carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 from operations. SEIR No. 339 required the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 to reduce significant impacts as stated
above. Even with Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, however, the air quality impacts were
determined to be significant and unavoidable; therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the implementation of the Approved Project had the potential to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. During construction, projects within the Platinum Triangle would create temporary
emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 based on the ambient pollutant concentration of each pollutant and distance
to the nearest sensitive receptor. Although it is difficult to determine exact emissions for a broad‐based master plan, based
on the proximity of the development to existing and proposed residences and the magnitude of construction required for the
Approved Project, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from construction activities was
determined to be significant. In addition, during the operation of the Approved Project, sensitive land uses, including
residential and recreational uses, would be located near major pollutant sources, including Interstate 5 (I‐5) and State Route
57 (SR‐57). This would result in potentially significant air quality impacts from exposure of people to substantial
concentrations of toxic air pollutant contaminants. Even with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2,
2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐ 5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that the odors generated during construction would dissipate before reaching sensitive receptors.
An occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks on public roadways may result; however, SEIR
No. 339 concluded that these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the industrial land uses within the Platinum
Triangle would generally be non‐odorous. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, “Nuisance,” would safeguard the community
from any odors from food preparation in restaurants and the residential uses.
- 13-
SEIR No. 339 found that odor impacts from placement of new residential land uses near existing odor generators would be
less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2‐ 10, which requires odor assessment for projects that
would be located within 1,000 feet of an existing industrial facility.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new odor impacts would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
- 14-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is a built‐out environment with no natural resources and no native
biological resources reside within the area. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or
special‐ status species would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not
contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
related to biological resources identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities would occur and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain wetlands. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no
impacts associated with federally protect wetlands would occur and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban
and developed and does not contain federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
necessary. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain areas associated with wildlife corridors or
nursery sites. SEIR No. 339 found no impacts associated with migratory wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites
would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Proposed Project would not expand the area of the Platinum Triangle or
be located outside the original Project Area. In addition, the Project Area does not provide suitable native wildlife nursery
habitat.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project was not subject to a tree preservation ordinance or other local
regulation protecting biological resources. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources would occur, and no mitigation was necessary.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not within a plan area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP); Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with an HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a plan area of an adopted
HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impacts to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or
other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on special‐status species would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide
Historic Preservation Plan.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.5?
- 15-
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any historical resources as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Platinum Triangle is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District and none of
the structures within the Platinum Triangle were identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony
Historic District Preservation Plan. No known historic archaeological sites within the Platinum Triangle were identified.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts would occur and no mitigation was necessary. Although the BBSP area has been
previously developed, because it is possible that previously unidentified archaeological artifacts could be present within the
area, each future project considered for approval within the BBSP area, by the City would be required to protect these
resources as required under the mitigation measures. The discovery of buried resources within the project site would not
contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to tribal cultural
resources would not be cumulatively considerable. SEIR No. 339 determined that no defined historical resources or
structures exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project Area. The Proposed Project would not impact new
locations with potential historical resources or structures beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, no impacts to
historical resources would occur and no mitigation is required
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any known archaeological resources. There are no
known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
Platinum Triangle has already been disturbed and the potential for any subsurface cultural resources is remote. SEIR No.
339 did not identify any impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, and no mitigation was required. SEIR
No. 339 determined that no identified archaeological resources exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project
Area. The Proposed Project would not impact new locations with the potential to contain archaeological resources beyond
those analyzed for the Approved Project. The Project Area has already been disturbed, and the potential for any subsurface
cultural resources to be discovered during construction is remote. Nonetheless, consistent with existing regulatory
requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Part 15064.5(f), and Public Resources Code
Section 20182, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find would immediately stop until a qualified
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of
the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending on the significance of the find, the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.
Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on historical resources or structures
would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
- 16-
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Map does not delineate any known earthquake faults within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with earthquake fault rupture would occur and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the Project
Area is not underlain by any known active faults not previously identified. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is
required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that development pursuant to the PTMLUP might expose occupants to impacts from earthquakes,
including strong seismic ground shaking. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with strong seismic ground
shaking were less than significant with compliance with building standards during final engineering of proposed projects
within the Platinum Triangle. As with all of Southern California, the Project Area has the potential for strong seismic
shaking. Design of the Proposed Project would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California Building
Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, seismic‐related impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less
- 17-
than significant. The Platinum Triangle is not underlain by groundwater greater than 11.5 feet below the surface and would
have a low probability for liquefaction impacts. Because impacts related to seismic‐related ground failure were less than
significant, no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not within an area with liquefaction potential in the Safety
Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). In addition, groundwater was not
encountered during exploratory borings drilled to 21.5 feet below ground surface as part of the Geotechnical Report. Based
on the historical high groundwater level, groundwater in the vicinity of the Project Area varies from approximately 30 to 50
feet below ground surface. Therefore, there is a low probability for liquefaction impacts to occur and no mitigation is
required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any major slopes on or in the immediate vicinity and
concluded that no impacts associated with landslides would occur and no mitigation was necessary. There are no major
hillsides or slopes within the Project Area. The Project Area is not within an area with earthquake‐ induced landslide
potential in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). Therefore,
no impacts related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that soils in the Platinum Triangle have a slight erosion potential. Adherence to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) would reduce erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Because impacts related to erosion were less than
significant, no mitigation was required. Soils in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Project Area, have only a slight
erosion potential. Construction of the Proposed Project would adhere to the requirements of the Construction General
Permit. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction best
management practices (BMPs) for erosion management. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and
implementation of construction BMPs would ensure that impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the geologic composition of the Platinum Triangle is relatively stable because the soil units
underlying the Platinum Triangle are generally medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of
gravel and infrequent seams of silt. By following the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the
recommendations contained in these site‐specific geotechnical studies, the soils would be stable for building and risks of
incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with a geologic unit or unstable soil were determined to be
less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project is located within the Platinum Triangle, which
consists of relatively stable soils. Project design and construction would comply with the requirements of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report. Compliance
with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this
reason, the impacts associated with soil instability would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
As identified in SEIR No. 339, the near‐surface soils within the Platinum Triangle area are generally medium‐dense, fine,
and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. The expansion potential for these
soils is considered low. Additionally, any design or construction for projects in the Platinum Triangle would adhere to the
California Building Code and the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby decreasing the risk associated with development on
expansive soils. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. The
Project Area is within the Platinum Triangle, which consists of medium‐dense, fine and fine‐to‐medium sand with low
expansion potential. Design of the Proposed Project would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California
Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code, as well as the recommendations contained in
the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks
of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. Therefore the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts over those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that projects within the Platinum Triangle would not utilize septic tanks or alternative sewer
systems. There would be no impact for soils supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems and no mitigation
was required. The Proposed Project would not add septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems to the Project
Area. Therefore, no impacts related to alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur and no mitigation is required.
The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
- 18-
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts from earthquake faults would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would create a substantial increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from existing conditions. The SEIR identified mitigation measures for solid waste: 2‐3, 10‐18, 10‐19, 10‐20; transportation
and motor vehicles: 2‐5, 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐12, 9‐14; energy efficiency: 2‐6, 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐24; and water conservation and
efficiency: 10‐7, 10‐9, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14. These mitigation measures would reduce GHGs to the greatest extent feasible;
however, the Approved Project would still generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions when compared to existing
conditions. Therefore, the GHG emission generated by the PTMLUP were determined to be significant and unavoidable,
requiring the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant and unavoidable impacts
resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The proposed development will
consist of 28 triplex townhome buildings (three dwellings attached per building) for a total of 84 dwelling units with a
residential density of 18.8 dwelling units per acre (18.9 dwelling units per acre with proposed lot line adjustment). Along
with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape walkways,
pocket parks, a recreation center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with barbeque/dining area and
restroom building for the residents.
SEIR No. 339 determined that full implementation of the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Scoping Plan measures
would reduce emissions produced by the Approved Project by 35 percent. Implementing these measures along with the
statewide GHG reduction measures for electricity producers, vehicles, fuel, and the cap‐and‐trade program would reduce the
project emissions consistent with the GHG 30 percent reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, as described in
the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in the Scoping Plan. SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved
Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
The proposed project would not substantially increase GHG emissions because they do not add additional capacity beyond
that addressed in SEIR No. 339. The Proposed Project would follow the same regulations and plan measures for GHG
reduction of at least 30 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts from GHG generation would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 19-
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
(Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
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) 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)?
- 20-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 identified that many businesses that operate within the Platinum Triangle use various hazardous materials.
The Approved Project would continue to allow the use of hazardous materials in the operation of these businesses, as the
Anaheim General Plan designates the northern part of the Platinum Triangle for industrial land use. All businesses in the
area must seek permits for hazardous materials and maintain records of hazardous material storage, use, and disposal.
Implementation of the Approved Project would not result in a change in the frequency of use of hazardous materials in the
Platinum Triangle and would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation was required.
The Proposed Project is a residential project that would not contribute to additional hazardous material usage during
operation. During construction, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials typically associated with construction
activities would be routinely transported and used in the Project Area. These hazardous materials could include gasoline,
diesel fuel, lubricants, and other products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. The transport, use, and
handling of these materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with project construction. Although such materials may
be stored in the Project Area, any transport, use, and handling of these materials is expected to be limited to quantities and
concentrations required to operate and maintain equipment. Removal and disposal of any hazardous materials from the
Project Area during construction would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider in compliance with all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
SEIR No. 339 identified that development within the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the
environment through the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, existing federal and State
regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into
the environment. The impact was determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. The Proposed
Project is a residential project that would not increase the usage of hazardous materials during operation and would therefore
not increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts related to the reasonably
foreseeable upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that State and federal rules regulating the use and handling of hazardous materials would ensure
that users comply with permitting programs and restrict the use of unauthorized hazardous materials. The Approved Project
would not result in adverse effects to the school population because new hazardous materials would not be introduced into
the environment. SEIR No. 339 determined that hazardous waste impacts to schools were less than significant and no
mitigation was required. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 relied on the database record searches for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 321 in 1999 and FEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that had potential to
pose environmental hazards inside the Platinum Triangle and nearby areas. Most of these properties were classified as
“closed” action status and required no further remediation, and some were undergoing remediation at the time of analysis.
Any identified hazardous materials would be handled in a manner consistent with State California Hazardous Substances
Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
In addition, property owners/developers would prepare a Phase I Site Assessment for the proposed project site. Any
properties with an “open” action status due to identified hazardous concerns would be required to address the hazardous
concern and obtain a “no‐further‐action” status from the applicable oversight agency. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the
development of the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the release of
hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos
Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, no impacts related to airport land use plans would
occur and no mitigation was required. As identified in SEIR No. 339, the Project Area is not located within an airport land
use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore no safety hazard impacts related to an airport would occur and no
mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified two heliports located at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center and the North Net
Training Center. In addition, the Anaheim Police Department (APD) conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot
of Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The flight paths for all of these sites are located away from the Platinum Triangle; therefore,
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would present a less than significant impact to the heliports and no
mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would not include any tall structures that could interfere with flight paths of
the nearby heliports. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airport safety hazards would occur and no mitigation is
required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
- 21-
SEIR No. 339 identified that the City’s emergency preparedness plan complied with State law and interfaced with other
cities and counties within Southern California. The City also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi‐agency responses
to disasters. SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project would intensify development densities in the area. However, new
development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles. SEIR No. 339 concluded that these impacts would be
less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle contains no undeveloped wildland areas within its boundaries or in
adjacent areas. The Approved Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. Because no impacts related to wildlands would occur, no mitigation was required. The areas within
and adjacent to the Project Area are urban and developed. No wildland areas susceptible to fires exist in the Project Area or
adjacent areas. No impacts related to wildland fires would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts regarding significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase
from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 22-
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by
seiche or mudflow?
k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or
other outdoor work areas?
- 23-
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?
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
Area or surrounding areas?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface.
During grading and construction activities, there would be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small
quantities of pollutants into the stormwater runoff. However, SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project would comply
with current water quality regulations, including the City Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), as required by Mitigation Measure 3‐2. This would include preparation
of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, and a WQMP and implementation of construction and operational
BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
SEIR No. 339 found that the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle would result in additional
demands on groundwater supplies. To meet projected water demand, the City would upgrade the initial production rate of a
previously proposed new water well in the Platinum Triangle and would drill an additional new well at a location to be
determined. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of an additional groundwater well in Anaheim would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies due to the location of the new water well in relation to the Orange County Water
District (OCWD) Groundwater Basin. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less
than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially
increase the amount of impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the
same as under existing conditions. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and
the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) would ensure that property owners/developers would properly convey
and discharge runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because SEIR No. 339 determined that these
impacts were less than significant, no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Approved Project involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially
increase the amount of impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the
same as under existing conditions. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and
the OCFCD would ensure that property owners/developers properly convey and discharge runoff as appropriate. Therefore,
SEIR No 339 determined that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General
Construction Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects are less than significant. Compliance with the
State General Construction Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that development would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff. Therefore, SEIR No. 339
concluded that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General
Construction Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects would be less than significant. SEIR No. 339
concluded that development would not create or contribute runoff water that would substantially degrade water quality.
Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood
- 24-
zone unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed.
Therefore, impacts related to the placement of housing within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all
aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts related to the placement of
structures within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all
aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts related to flooding were
determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that the topography within the Platinum Triangle is flat and not subject to mudflow. No water bodies
are located within the Platinum Triangle that could produce a seiche during a seismic event. Therefore, no impacts
associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation was required. Due to its inland
location, lack of nearby large water body, and relatively flat topography, there is no potential for seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow to affect the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would
occur and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts related to groundwater would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would increase the adopted development intensities and expand the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, which would not physically divide an established community by creating
physical or perceived barriers to movement within a community. The proposed development will consist of 28 triplex
townhome buildings (three dwellings attached per building) for a total of 84 dwelling units with a residential density of 18.8
dwelling units per acre (18.9 dwelling units per acre with proposed lot line adjustment). Along with the residential buildings
and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include landscape walkways, pocket parks, a recreation
center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the
residents. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to division of an established community would occur
and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including those established
by the City and SCAG, to be less than significant. SEIR No. 339 also concluded that the Approved Project would be
inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and Facilities Element Goal 8.1 because high‐rise
- 25-
residential towers proposed as part of the A‐Town Metro Project could potentially interview with an existing Southern
California Gas Company (SCG) microwave tower. No feasible mitigation was available to minimize the potential conflict
with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function; therefore, impacts were concluded to be significant and
unavoidable. This potential impact required the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address
significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would not affect an HCP or an NCCP because the Platinum Triangle is
not a part of either of these plans. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts to HCPs or NCCPs would occur and
no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts conflicting with any applicable HCP or
NCCP would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no mineral resources were located in the Platinum Triangle. No loss of mineral resources
would occur, and no mitigation was required. The City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) does
not identify the Project Area as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within Mineral Resource Zone 2
(MRZ‐2). The Proposed Project would not result in impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the City of Anaheim General Plan does not identify the Platinum Triangle as a Regionally
Significant Aggregate Resource Area. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no loss of mineral resources would occur and no
mitigation was required. The Project Area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral
Resource Map) as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within MRZ‐2. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not result in impacts to locally important mineral resource recovery sites and no mitigation is required. The Proposed
Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase
from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 26-
XII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project had potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of City of
Anaheim General Plan and Noise Ordinance standards. The noise would primarily be derived from vehicular traffic,
especially on Gene Autry Way from I‐5 to State College Boulevard and on State College Boulevard from Orange Avenue to
Gene Autry Drive. In addition, SEIR No. 339 found that noise‐sensitive residential uses may be exposed to mobile and
stationary‐source noise levels exceeding State and/or City standards. Further, building facades exposed to greater than 69
A‐weighted decibels (dBA) would need to be improved architecturally to achieve a 45 dBA community noise equivalent
interior noise level limit. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐2, 5‐3, 5‐4, 5‐5, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to
reduce noise impacts by requiring noise reduction improvements for residences and disclosure of abnormal noise levels prior
to approval of project construction, and restrictions on hours of operations for construction activities, as well as construction
equipment maintenance requirements. Even with these measures, the noise impacts were determined to be significant and
unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
The Proposed Project would require construction activities which would create temporarily increased noise levels for the
surrounding areas. Noise impacts during construction of the Proposed Project were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at
a programmatic level. According to the City’s Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from
the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction
noise from the City noise standards at the property line when construction occurs during these hours, construction noise
would have the potential to generate noise levels well above the existing ambient noise levels. The property owner/developer
would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to increased noise levels by
requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at certain times of the day and with proper operating procedures.
The Proposed Project does not include an expansion of the roadway improvements previously identified in SEIR No. 339.
The proposed development will consist of 28 triplex townhome buildings (three dwellings attached per building) for a total
- 27-
of 84 dwelling units with a residential density of 18.8 dwelling units per acre (18.9 dwelling units per acre with proposed lot
line adjustment). Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements will include
landscape walkways, pocket parks, a recreation center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with
barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the residents. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to generate
additional traffic noise beyond what was assumed in SEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measure 5‐1 in SEIR No. 339 would reduce
impacts associated with operational noise produced by the Proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
5‐1, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10, any improvements associated with the Proposed Project would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would potentially create excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. The vibration and noise would be created by construction activities in the vicinity of
vibration‐sensitive land uses and could also impact any housing located near the Amtrak/Metrolink Orange County Line.
SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measure 5‐5 to reduce groundborne noise and vibration impacts from pile driving and
Mitigation Measure 5‐6 to reduce the impacts created by groundborne vibration and noise to vibration‐sensitive land uses in
close proximity to the Orange County Line. However, even with these mitigation measures, the impacts remained significant
and unavoidable and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase in the ambient traffic
noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 established mitigation measures to reduce the
impacts on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels created
by construction near existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10
to reduce the temporary impacts on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified. Construction activities
would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area. Noise impacts during construction of the
Proposed Project were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a programmatic level. According to the City’s Noise
Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction noise from the City noise standards at the property
line when construction occurs during these hours, construction noise would have the potential to generate noise levels well
above the existing ambient noise levels. The property owner/developer would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9,
and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to increased noise levels by requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at
certain times of the day and with proper operating procedures. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the
Proposed Project would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not located in an area with an airport land use plan. The people living
in the Platinum Triangle would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from air operations. SEIR No. 339 determined that
no impacts related to airport land use plans would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not located in a
zone that is regulated by an airport land use plan. The Proposed Project would not create additional exposure of people to
excessive air traffic noise. No impacts related to airport noise would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no private airstrips are located within the City; however, two heliports are located near the
Platinum Triangle. In addition, APD conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of Anaheim.
Although implementation of the Approved Project would place more people in the vicinity of heliport noise, the Approved
Project would not contribute to an increase in noise from these sources. SEIR No. 339 determined that the impact would be
less than significant, and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning excessive noise levels from
private airstrips would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339. No mitigation is applicable.
- 28-
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
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?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impact.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would directly induce population growth by allowing additional
residential development and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional nonresidential development in the
Platinum Triangle. The proposed development will consist of 28 triplex townhome buildings (three dwellings attached per
building) for a total of 84 dwelling units with a residential density of 18.8 dwelling units per acre (18.9 dwelling units per
acre with proposed lot line adjustment). Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area
improvements will include landscape walkways, pocket parks, a recreation center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck,
covered patio with barbeque/dining area and restroom building for the residents. However, SEIR No. 339 concluded that
buildout of the Platinum Triangle would result in a jobs/housing ratio more balanced when compared to the existing
conditions in the area. No impacts were identified, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not displace any units of housing. Therefore,
SEIR No. 339 determined that no impacts related to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would not displace any people and no construction of replacement
housing would be required. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to displacement of people would
occur and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning loss of existing housing
resources would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?
- 29-
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the Approved
Project would delay Anaheim Fire District’s (AFD) response time for first engine response, increase demand for other
services of the AFD, and require additional fire facilities. Additional property taxes would be collected from the new
residential projects in the Platinum Triangle, and these would be used to cover the additional staffing needs. In addition, the
Public Safety Impact Fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects within the
Platinum Triangle, which would provide funds for the construction of new fire facilities. SEIR No. 339 found impacts
associated with fire protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐1 and
7‐2, which require installation of fire sprinklers on new buildings and payment of impact fees as identified in the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 17.36.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the Approved
Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing by APD. SEIR No. 339 determined that a Public Safety
Impact Fee would assist with the generation of funds for facilities and equipment for police activities. Additionally, the
increase in property taxes collected from the new development would be expected to cover staffing needs for the law
enforcement. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with police protection facilities to be less than significant with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐3, 7‐4, 7‐5, 7‐6, and 7‐7, which require APD to review plans for new developments
and for property owners/developers to pay associated police fees.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that residential development within the Platinum Triangle would create approximately 4,018
additional elementary and middle school students in the Anaheim Elementary School District and approximately 1,549
additional high school students in the Anaheim Union High School District. The SEIR found that developer payment of
school fees levied by Anaheim City School District and Anaheim Union High School District would reduce potential
school‐ related impacts to a less than significant level. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with schools to be less than
significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 7‐8 and 7‐9, which require coordination with
schools and payment of school fees.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. As mentioned above, the proposed development will consist of 28 triplex
townhome buildings for a total of 84 dwelling units. Although the common areas are proposed, along with landscaped
walkways, pocket parks, a recreation center that will include a pool, spa, lounge deck, covered patio with barbeque/dining
area and restroom building for the residents, it would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater
maintenance for park facilities. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would
ensure that adequate recreational space would be provided to support the population growth in the Platinum Triangle area.
With compliance with this regulation and incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which
would require the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts for the development, SEIR No. 339
determined the impacts to be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Approved Project could potentially affect the library system in the local area. Increased
population would increase demand for these facilities and the services they provide. Mitigation Measure 7‐10 requires the
payment of developer fees to assist with providing additional materials and services at the libraries servicing the population
within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with library facilities to be less than significant with
the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7‐10.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning regional and neighborhood
parks would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
- 30-
XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater
maintenance efforts. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational
space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With compliance with this regulation along
with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and
construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than
significant.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the Approved Project would increase
demand for parks and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater
maintenance efforts. The SEIR concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational
space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With compliance with this regulation along
with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and
construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than
significant.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning construction of recreational
facilities would occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339. No mitigation measures from SEIR No. 339 are applicable.
- 31-
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
those results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would conflict with the LOS for the roadway system within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 required Mitigation Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12,
9‐13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to
minimize the LOS impacts on roadway systems in the Platinum Triangle. Even with the incorporation of these mitigation
measures, impacts to the roadway system remained significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project had the potential to conflict with an applicable Congestion Management
Program (CMP), including LOS standards for designated roadways or highways, as well as intersections under California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction, that are identified in the CMP. SEIR No. 339 identified Mitigation
Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12, 9‐13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing
facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to minimize these impacts. Even with these mitigation
measures, the impacts related to increased traffic volumes on the roadway system and Caltrans intersections would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council when SEIR No.
339 was certified. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adopted the CMP for Orange County, which
provides a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions on major freeways, highways, and roadways
within the County. The Congestion Management Program Highway System (CMPHS) consists of the Orange County smart
street network plus the State highway system. There are no CMP intersections in the Project Area, and the four intersections
analyzed in the Traffic Study (State College Boulevard/Artisan Court, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, West
Dupont Drive/Orangewood Avenue, and Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue) are not CMP intersections. In addition, the
- 32-
Proposed Project would implement roadway improvements identified in the PTIP and help alleviate traffic congestion
through expansion of the existing roadways. The Proposed Project would not impact CMP intersections and no mitigation is
required. The level of impact to CMP intersections would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there were two heliports within the vicinity of the Platinum Triangle. These include the North
Net Training Facility and University of California, Irvine Medical Center. Additionally, the APD utilizes the parking lot of
Anaheim Stadium for helicopter training exercises. Hazards from helicopter take‐off and landing activities could affect local
land uses, and the City seeks to limit the exposure of the public to these risks by minimizing the siting of incompatible land
uses surrounding existing heliports. The Approved Project would allow development of various land uses, including high
rise residential uses, in proximity to existing heliports. However, such developments would be reviewed by the Airport Land
Use Commission to ensure in consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission’s Airport Environs Land Use Plan
guidelines. With compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan guidelines, SEIR No. 339 determined that impacts
related to air traffic patterns are less than significant. The Proposed Project includes the development of 11 multi-family
residential buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units, but it does not include tall structures that would obstruct or cause a
change in air traffic patterns or pose a safety risk to aircraft. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase air traffic
such that it would result in safety hazards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts related to air traffic
patterns and no mitigation is required. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other
hazardous design features. Future projects within the Platinum Triangle would be required to dedicate land, including
construction easements, for the ultimate arterial highway rights‐of‐way to maintain LOS and access to the Platinum Triangle
area (Mitigation Measure 9‐14). Construction of bus turnouts as recommended by OCTA would further alleviate safety
impacts due to design features (Mitigation Measure 9‐15). Therefore, SEIR No. 339 found the impacts related to the design
of hazardous project features to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 9‐14 and 9‐15.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the property owner/ developer and/or the City would design and improve vehicle access
within the Platinum Triangle in accordance with the requirements of the City to reduce any emergency access impacts from
buildout of the Platinum Triangle. Development projects would be reviewed and approved by the AFD prior to issuance of
building permits to ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided during all phases of construction.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with emergency access to be less than significant with implementation of existing
regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project is consistent with the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which was a part
of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy to reduce emissions and increase mobility. The PTMLUP includes design
standards for bus stops, pedestrian walkways, and the bicycle system to promote other forms of transportation within the
Platinum Triangle. Development of additional services includes the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center
facility, which would provide a variety of alternative transportation options to the Platinum Triangle area. Therefore, SEIR
No. 339 concluded that the impacts associated with the Approved Project on alternative transportation facilities would be
less than significant. No mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts concerning emergency access would
occur because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
- 33-
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste
water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project (including large-scale developments as defined by
Public Resources Code § 21151.9 and described in
Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information
Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to electricity?
i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to natural gas?
j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to telephone service?
k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to television
service/reception?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. With implementation of sewer
system improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment facilities, was anticipated to be adequate for
development associated with the Approved Project. Further, it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a
- 34-
10‐year storm event would be low and would not create a significant impact. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with
wastewater treatment requirements to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1,
10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements and the addition of new water
facilities. With implementation of improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment facilities, was anticipated to
accommodate development associated with the Approved Project. Rule 15‐D of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates,
and Regulations specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected land use water demands
within Anaheim, including within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 determined that Water Rule 15‐D of the City’s
Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524C) would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve
the Platinum Triangle area. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with new or expanded water and wastewater treatment
facilities to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5,
10‐6, 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area
identified that the existing storm drainage system was deficient under the existing conditions in the Platinum Triangle at the
time the SEIR was prepared. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of storm drain facilities would occur in compliance
with engineering standards and regulations and would not result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts associated
with stormwater drainage facilities were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure
10‐17 identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that based on the Water Supply Assessment for the Approved Project, surplus water would be
available through the 20‐year planning period. SEIR No. 339 impacts associated with water supplies were determined to be
less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13,
10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. After improvements, the sewer
system and sewer treatment facilities were anticipated to accommodate development associated with the Approved Project.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with wastewater treatment service to be less than significant with the incorporation
of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Platinum Triangle area and would be
the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the Platinum Triangle. The Approved Project would increase the
service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The SEIR concluded that
there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the anticipated solid waste
stream generated by implementation of the Approved Project. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with landfill capacity
to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would generate increased construction and
operational solid waste in the area. Each development project in the Platinum Triangle would be required to submit project
plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans
comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste
Management Program, as administered by the City of Anaheim. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with solid waste
statutes and regulations to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19,
and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would increase the electrical load on existing
facilities and would require both upgrades to the existing 12‐kilovolt distribution systems and construction of a new
electrical substation. In addition, plans for each project would be required to comply with the State energy efficiency
standards (CCR Title 24), as specified in Mitigation Measures 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐23, and 10‐24. SEIR No. 339 concluded that
with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts on electrical service would be less than significant. SEIR No. 339
concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would increase natural gas demand in the Platinum Triangle.
Buildout of the Platinum Triangle would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas transmission pipelines; placement of at least
two additional pressure‐limiting stations; and alteration of at least 3 miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase
capacity. With the necessary system upgrades and facility improvements, SCG would be able to service the Platinum
Triangle with natural gas. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service would occur.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with solid waste would occur
because of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
- 35-
XIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 339
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have Impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of the environment related to biological and
cultural resources because the Platinum Triangle is already developed and approved for redevelopment. In addition, the
resulting increase in development intensities would not further degrade the quality of the environment. No impact related to
degradation of the quality of the environment would occur and no mitigation was required. As discussed and analyzed in this
document, the Proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the Proposed Project would not 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, or reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, as discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources,
the Project Area does not contain any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and no
impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would result in cumulatively considerable air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic
impacts. As a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council. As
discussed and analyzed in this document, the Proposed Project would not increase the severity or result in new impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the severity of a previous cumulative impact
or result in any new cumulative impacts not already analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Approved Project would result in significant unavoidable air quality, land use, noise, traffic,
and GHG impacts. As a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
No changes in circumstances involving the Proposed Project have occurred; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result
in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of
substantial importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because
of the Proposed Project, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
1
Scott Koehm
From:Madelyn <mdlynfx@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2019 2:58 PM
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing on May 29, 2019
Hello Scott,
My name is Madelyn and I’m a resident of Anaheim. I live at The Core apartment complex. I received a letter in the mail
about condos and townhomes that might be built on Gene Autry Way. I won’t be able to attend the hearing so I thought
I would email you.
I don’t think the buildings should be built if they are not up to code. I can hear my neighbors through all of my walls and
my building is up to code (I believe). I can’t imagine how much noise I would here from my neighbors if the condos were
located closer to each other than what’s required. Builders need to stop cramming residents into their complexes like
sardines—so that they can turn a profit.
There are already hundreds of apartment units located in Platinum Triangle. There’s brand new buildings sitting empty
right now because no one is renting. Anaheim residents don’t need more housing.
If new housing was built, it would be great if affordable housing was built to help out those who can’t afford $2,000 a
month for a studio apartment. The rent prices in Platinum Triangle are huge.
It would be great to see new shopping built in this area. Platinum Triangle residents drive 15 minutes to Orange to go to
Trader Joe’s or 15 minutes to Garden Grove to go to Costco. There is no easy access to grocery stores, convenient stores,
or pharmacies. Instead of new housing, it would be great to have a new shopping center in Platinum Triangle.
Thank you for your time,
Madelyn
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
N
E
W
C
O
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
D
E
N
C
E