The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2005/02/23Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ® Chairman: Gail Eastman ® Chairman Pro-Tempore: David Romero Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Cecilia Flores, Pat Velasquez, Ed Perez, (One Vacant Seat) ® Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues (As requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review for items on the February 23, 2005 agenda ® Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session ® Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:00 P.flA. the secretary. ® Pledge Of Allegiance ® Public Comments ® Consent Calendar ® Public Hearing Items ® Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommissionCa~anaheim.net H:\docs\clerical\agendas\022305:doc 02/23/05 Page 1 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the .. _. Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendars The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Reports and Recommendations 1 A. (a) CEQA Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved) (b) Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 (Tracking No. SU62004-00014) Agents: Donald Jackson, Orange County Water District, 1050 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Jim Pendergast, BV Engineering, One Corporate Plaza, Project Planner. #101, Irvine, CA 92606 Made Newland (mnewland(a anaheim.net) Location: 2901 East South Street. Requests time extension to comply with conditions of approval fora sr888omn.doc previously-approved 5-lot single-family residential subdivision. Q• S. 134 16.(a) Variance No. 4239 (Tracking No. VAR2005A4644) (b) Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3556 and 2000-04201 (Tracking No. CUP2005-04959 and CUP2005-04962) Agent: Gregg Roseen, Roseen Builders, Inc., 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, #316, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Location: 8290 East Crystal Drive. Requests termination of Variance No. 4239 (to waive the maximum number of wall signs to construct four (4) wall signs in conjunction with a previously approved car wash facility) and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3556 and 2000-04201 (to permit a service station and car wash facility with a waiver of a) minimum structural setback, b) required landscaped setback, and c) permitted roof mounted equipment to establish athree-lot commercial subdivision) and (to expand an existing car wash facility including an auto service (oil and tube) with waivers of a) permitted freestanding sign, b) maximum number of wall project Planner: signs, and c) required structural setback adjacent to an arterial Kimberly Wong highway) (kwonp2no anaheim.net) Termination Resolution No. sr8859kw.doc Q.S. 51 02/23/05 Page 2 Minutes 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 7, 2005 (Motion) 1 D. Receiving and approving supplemental detailed Minutes for Item No. 2 from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2005, scheduled to be heard as a public hearing item before City Council on Tuesday, March 1, 2005. ITEM NO. 2 o GPA NO. 2004-00421 02/23/05 Page 3 Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Readvertised) 2b. Waiver of Code Requirement 2c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04952 Owner: William T. Taormina, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815 Agent: Steve Elkins, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Parcel 1: 401 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.3 acre, located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street. Parcel 2: 400 408, 410, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.5 acres, located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street. Request to permit a public dance hall, banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot with waiver of (a) minimum landscaped setback and (b) required dedication and improvement. 'Waiver (b) has been deleted. Continued from the February 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 3a. CEQA Negative Declaration 3b. Reclassification No. 2004-00141 3c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004.04951 3d. Tentative Tract Map No. 16833 Owner: Marci Odon, 3117 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 Agent: Walter Bowman, Bonanni Development, 5622 Research Drive, .Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Location: 3117. 3121 and 3125 West Ball Road. Property is 1.4 acres, having a frontage of 198 feet on the north side of Ball Road located 741 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue. Reclassification No. 2004-00141 -Request reclassification of the property from the T (Transition) zone to the RM-1 (Residential, Multiple- Family) zone, or less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04951 -Request to permit a 16-unit attached single-family residential subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No. 16833 - To establish a 1-lot 16-unit attached single-family airspace subdivision. Continued from February 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. .Project Planner: Amy Vazquez (avazq uez(o7a na h ei m.n et) sr8858av.doc Q.S. 83 Request for continuance to March 7, 2005 Project Planner: Amy Vazquez (avazguez gC~.anaheim.net) sr8859.doc Q.S. 10 02/23/05 Page 4 4a. CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 1 4b. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04953 Owner: Marc E. Herrouin, 15 Sonrisa, Irvine, CA 92620 Agent: Jon Chabot, 2910 East Miraloma Avenue, Unit A, Anaheim, CA 92806 Richard Lombardi, 15 Sonrisa, Irvine, CA 92620 Location: 2910 East Miraloma Avenue. Unit A. Property is approximately 0.9-acre, having a frontage of 132 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, located 401 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street (Topline Parts and Accessories). Request to permit and retain an existing automotive repair facility with accessory retail sales of automotive items in conjunction with an existing automotive parts distribution and manufacturing facility. Conditional Use Permit Resolution PJo. Project Planner: John Ramirez (iAramirez(a anaheim.net) sr5210jr.doc Q.S. 131 02/23/05 Page 5 Sa. Sb. 5c. 5d. Agent: Archstone Communities, One Sperctrum Pointe Drive, Suite 224, Lake Forrest, CA 92630 Location: Property fs approximately 20.8 acres, located within the cities of Anaheim and Orange., south of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue. 2150 South State Colleae Boulevard. This request pertains specifically to the northerly 8.4 acre portion of the project site, located within the City of Anaheim, within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District (Formerly Orange Drive-in). Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTflALUP) (Miscellaneous Case No. 2003-00071) -Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Amendment No. 1) to provide for the Gateway District to have two sub-areas (Sub-Area A consisting of 41.6 acres and Sub-Area B consisting of 8.4 acres). Amendment to Title 18 "Zoning" (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2003- 00025) -Request to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to establish zoning and development standards for the Gateway District, Sub-Area B and to provide for the development of amultiple-family residential development in Sub-Area B subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 -Request to construct amultiple- family residential development (the Archstone Gateway Protect) in the Gateway District, Sub-Area B consisting of 352 apartment units with on-site tenant business and leisure amenities (the apartment complex is proposed to straddle the City limits of Anaheim and Orange with 352 units in the City of Anaheim and 532 units in the City of Orange for a total of 884 units). Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. Amendment No. 1 to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner: Cheryl Flores (cflo res(a)an a hei m. net) sr8858cf.doc Q.S. 119 Adjourn To Monday, March 7, 2005, at 11:30 A.M. for Preliminary Plan Review and a workshop on schools. 02/23/05 Page 6 Owner: Drive-in T California, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of thgis agenda was posted at: (TIME) (DATE) ' LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND f COU'~~N///]Cjj IL DISP).AY KIOSK SIGNED: ~~L'4~~/~~~(P 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. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications., Conditional Use Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 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. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139. 02/23/05 Page 7 SCHEDULE 2005 March 7 March 21 April 4 April 18 May 2 May 16 June 1 (Wed) June 13 June 27 July 11 July 25 August 8 August 22 September 7 (Wed) September 19 October 3 October 17 October 31 November 14 November 28 December 12 December 28 (Wed) 02/23105 Page 8 ITEM N0. 1-A ~W RS-7 ~ 4R 2761 1 U EA H VIRGINIA AVE rr o T.T. NO. 12617 RM-4 RCL 86-87-03 ' RCL 83-84-09 T VAR 3588 O. C. F. C. D. APARTMENT WATER USES COMPLEX zzD Du o 3' ALDEN PL p~ RS-3 W O• TTM 2004-00014 T-SUB 2003-00006 R -2 d' TTM 16181 1 DU - CH ~ ® ~ RGL 2001-00043 F VAR 20D1-04437 .~ ~ GPA 2001-00388 R -2 U' % ~ z ~ O.C.W.D. j ~ 1 DU CH ® ~ _ a ~ + ~~_ W c7 Q i r ~' T t ~ STANDISH AVE ~~ P O. G. W. D. O a~ WATER USES :~'- ~ ' VACANT R -2 ~ « ~ 1 DU EACH ® :t' .; i { R -2 ~ 1 D EACH ~ , j 130' a s" fO ®..®...t~l~~l.6d 1. ed.46?F.1r.L®.. ®..®8 n ~- Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 TRACKING NO. SUBTTM2004-00014 Requested By: DONALD JACKSON REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED, 5-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 2901 East South Street ,~,s !I nos ..®..®..®..®..-®..®..®..®..®y:®.. Subject Property Date: February 23, 2005 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 134 City of Anaheim PLANNING ®EI~Ag2T'MENT February 23, 2005 Donald Jackson Orange County Water District 10500 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim City Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDTIONS wvnvanahtim.nel A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (b) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16181 -Request for a time extension Tracking No. SUBTTM2004-00014 :Donald Jackson, Orange County Water District, 10500 Eltis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, requests a time extension to record a Final Map for alive-lot single-family residential subdivision on property located at 2901 East South Street. ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion., seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commission offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one (1) year extension of time to expire on June 3, 2006 based on the existing and proposed use being consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and with applicable Zoning Code requirements. Sincerely, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission suaTTMlstet.do~ 20D Soulh Anaheim Boulevard P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEL (714) 7b5-5139 ATTACHidENT - R$R 1-A CI4'Y OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Planning Department May 9, 2001 Orange County Water District Attn: Don Jackson 10500 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim City Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2001. 10a. 10b. 10c. 10d. 10e. 10f. 10g. OWNER: Orange County Water District, Attn: Don Jackson, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92728. AGENT: BV Engineering, Attn: Jim Pedergast, One Corporate Park, Suite 101, Irvine, CA 92606 LOCATION: 2901 East South Street. This irregularly-shaped 1.04-acre property has a frontage of 68 feet orvthe north side of South Street and a maximum depth of 375 feet, it is located 130 feet east of the centerline of Westgate Drive, and is further described as 2901 East South Street. Petitioner requests approval of the following: General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00388: An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Map to redesignate this property from General Open Space to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00043: To reclassify the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural)Znne to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zane. Variance No. 2001-04437: Waiver of minimum private street standards to establish afve-lot single family residential subdivision. Exception to Enoineering Standard Detail No. 122: Waiver of minimum private street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 (readvertised): To establish alive-lot single-family residential subdivision. Citv Council Review of Items 10a. 10c. 10d. 10e and 10f 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, California 92803 (714) 765-5139 www.anaheim.net cr5072pk.doc GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-46 Granted RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-47 Granted VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-48 Denied ACTIONS: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish afive-lot RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zoned single family residential subdivision on an irregularly-shaped 1.04-acre property having a frontage of 68 feet on the north side of South Street and a maximum depth of 375 feet, being located 130 feet east of the centerline of Westgate Drive, and further described as 2901 East South Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol .and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 (readvertised), subject to the following conditions: 1. That one (1 ), twenty four inch (24°) box sized, Gingko biloba (Maidenhair tree) shall be planted in the city-owned parkway along South Street in accordance with City of Anaheim Tree Planting Specifications and at a location determined by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department. 2. That the legal property owner shall furnish a subdivision agreement, in a form acceptableby the City Attorney, to the City of Anaheim agreeing to complete the public improvements required as conditions of the tentative map at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. _ 3. That an easement for private street access shall be dedicated for the benefit of all lots in the proposed subdivision.. The private street easement shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide with a four (4) foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the easement for a total private street easement width of twenty four (24) feet. 4. That a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Attorney's office. The maintenance covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of the common private facilities within the tract including the private streets, sidewalks and streetlights, private drainage facilities, and common landscaped areas. 5. That a sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of South Street in front of subject property. 6. That the developer shall make improvements to the existing public sewer on South Street by extending the existing city sewer on South Street to the entrance of the development. The design and construction of such sewer improvements shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. That all residential lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. 8. That because this project has landscaping areas exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and shall comply with Chapter 10.19 "Landscape Water Efficiency" of Anaheim Municipal Code and City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 5349. -2- 9. That the developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval to determine the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project:' 10. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and/or an easement for large meters and other public water facilities. 11. That approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16181 is granted subject to adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00388 and approval and finalization of Reclassification No. 2001-00043, now pending. 12. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11,above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 13. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. The City Council reviews all actions of the Planning Commission on tentative tract maps within ten (10) days following the action of the Commission. The Commission's decision will become final and effective unless during that time you or an opponent file an appeal to the City Council in writing, or the Council elects to hold a public hearing on the petition. All appeals must be filed in writing with the City Clerk; a date for public hearing before the Council will be set by the City Clerk and an advertised public hearing will be held. The decision of the Council approving or disapproving the action of the Commission, at a public hearing held by the Council on appealed petitions, will be forwarded to you and your opponent within ten (10) days after said public hearing by the City Council. Sincerely, L= Osbelia Edmundson, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission cc: BV Engineering Attn: Jim Pedergast One Corporate Park, Suite 101 Irvine, CA 92606 -3- ATTACHMENT - R$R 1-A MEMORANDUM -- -- CITY OF ANAHEIM, Code Enforcement Division DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Marie Newland, Planner FROM: Mark Ilagan, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: 2901 E. South St. On January 26, 2005, an inspection was conducted at the property known as 2901 E. South Street and observed the only Anaheim Municipal Code violation that exists on the property is overgrown vegetation. A review of Code Enforcement records indicates there is no prior history for the above listed property. If you have any questions please contact me at ext. 4477 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS tN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 4239, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 3556 AND 2000-04201 (8290 EAST CRYSTAL DRIVE) WHEREAS, on December 19, 1993, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC93-137, did grant Variance No. 4239 to waive the maximum number of wall signs to construct four wall signs in conjunction with a previously approved car wash facility; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 1992, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC92-124, did grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3556 to permit a service station/car wash facility with a waiver of the minimum structural setback, required landscaped setback, and permitted roof mounted equipment to establish athree-lot commercial subdivision; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by tts Resolution No. PC2000-54, did grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04201 to expand an existing car wash facility including an auto service (oil and tube) with waivers for a permitted freestanding sign, maximum number of wall signs, and required structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway; and WHEREAS, G. Roseen, property manager has submitted a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 4239, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3556 and 2000-04201 to comply with the condition of approval No. 21 of Resolution No. PC2004-44 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04842 (to construct a veterinary hospital and animal boarding facility with roof-mounted equipment with waivers of the maximum fence height, permitted commercial identification in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, maximum number of wall signs, and required improvement of setback areas) approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2004. Said condition requires the property owner to submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting termination of Variance No. 4239, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3556 and 2000-04201 since this entitlement is no longer needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 4239 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3556 and 2000-04201 on the basis of the foregoing findings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning.Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION CR/PC2005- -I- PC2005- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on Feburary 23, 2005 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2005. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2005- ~:' zza;rl Na. 2 ~ ~~N x PDE~E Si~~~ m $ j.~ '.. qAa 5 ?... bUP002~00i>4 4 ~ rP -'~, ~VAµ 11 S~v. ~ ~,,~2p4 r" ~r ~` o` Z a ~~ ~M~ SS $~ CYPR~ Rg.3 \I Q Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04952 (READVERTISED) ~~ys '': Subject Property Date: February 23, 2Dp5 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By; WILLIAM TAORMINA Q.S. Na. 83 REQUEST TO PERMIT A PUBLIC DANCE HALL, BANQUET HALL AND A COMMUNITY AND RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY WITH ON-PREMISES SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND AN OFF-SITE PARKING LOT WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK (B) REQUIRED DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS Parcel 1:410 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard; Parcel 2: 400, 406, 410, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard 1706 P BERtAS1~ ~~ Z 0 m ~ ' ~~ G N N P m G `-~ v ~~ ~ ~ i 0 ~.. v Rg.3 RG~~ 6 R RGL, ~ ~1 1 ITEM N0. 2 Date of Aerial Photo: May 2002 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04952 (READVERTISED) Subject Property Date: February 23, 2005 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: WILLIAM TAORMINA Q.S. No. 83 REQUEST TO PERMIT A PUBLIC DANCE HALL, BANQUET HALL AND A COMMUNITY AND RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY WITH ON-PREMISES SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND AN OFF-SITE PARKING LOT WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK (B) REQUIRED DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS Parcel 1:410 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard; Parcel 2: 400, 408, 410, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard a7os Staff Report to the Planning Commission February 23, 2005 (item No. 2 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 (Motion) 2b. ' WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion) 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952 (READVERTISED) (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) Parcel 1: This irregularly-shaped, 0.3-acre property is located at the northwest comer of Anaheim Boulevard and'Adele Street with frontages of 107 feet on he wesfside of Anaheim Boulevard and 103 feefon the north side of Atlele Street (401 and'407 North Anaheim Boulevard). i Parcel 2: This irregularly-shaped, 1.5 acre property is located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and'Adele Street with frontages of'361 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, 221 feet on the west side of Claudina Street and 204 feet on the north side of Adele Street (400, 408, 416'and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard), REQUEST: { (2) The. applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under the authority of Cade' Section 18.013:030.0402: opermit apublic dance hall, banquet hall `and a community and religious assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an :off-site parking lot with waivers of the following: (a) ,SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010 ' - Minimum landscaped setback <!1F fPPt renuireri'9feet ^ronnsedl (b) 'SECTION NO. 18.40.060 - Required street dedication and limprovement (DELETED) BACKGROUND: '- (3) This item was continued from the February 7,'2005, Commission meeting tc readvertise this petition to include waivers of the required street dedication and improvemenfand setback requirements. (4) Parcel 1 is currently developed with a commercial retail building, zoned C-G (General Commercial), and is designated for'Mixed Use land uses on the Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Pian. iParcel 2 is currently developed with the Son's of Italy banquet hall and a vacantlot, zoned C-G andRS-3, and is designated for Mixed Use land'uses on the Lantl Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 3813 (to permit a motorcycle sales and service facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was :approved by the Planning Commission on December 11,x1995. This use is no longer in;operatiortand should be terminated. (6) Variance No 1486 (to establish a furniture re-upholstery service) was approved by the City Council on July 10, 1962: This use is no longer in operation and should be terminated. (7) Variance No. 1105 (to permit the sale and installation of mufflers) was approved by the City Council on May 12, 1959: This use is no longer in operation and should be terminated. sr8858av' Page 1 DEVEL Rtaff RPrinr (8); 'Tt or tit, 5;! P!` P~ (9) rr de Code- Code-Required- Direction Existing Building/ Required Landscaped EandscapeSetback Building ':Setback 1 Setback 60 feet to building.: North 0 feet ofllandsca in' none ` none Easf(adjacenttd 1*foottd buildings: Anaheim Boulevard) 0* feet of!landsca in 15 feet' ` 15 feet South (adjacent to 5*feetto building AdeleiStreet) i0* feet of landsca in 10 feet' 10 feet West 0 feetto building I 0 feet oflandsca in' none none Code-- Code-Required: Direction Existing Building/ 'Required Landscaped LandscapeSetback+ Building .:Setback Setback North (adjacent 180 feet to building ; 10 feet:: 10 feet to Sycamore 10 feet of landscaping Street Easti (adjacent to 141 feet to building 10 feet' r 10 feet Claudina Street); 3 feet of landsca in South (adjacent: 110 feet to building 10 feett 10 feet to Atlele Street)', 11 feet of landsca in" West (adjacent- 0 feet to'building 15 feet. 15 feet to Anaheim *9 feet of landscaping Boulevard (10}; Description Seatin Capaci ' S uare feet ' Assembl area 247 seats 3718 Bar area Standin room onf 402 r Vestibule N/A 86 .Kitchen N/A 137 Office N/A 91 Restrooms ' N/A 455 Storage N/A 40 .Miscellaneous floor area N/A 208 Patio 45 seats (Far smoking & ictures onl 680 Entrance N/A 119 .Total 292 seats 5,936 :Code-Required Parking Use. Square Footage Parking Ratio per Spaces 1,000 s.f. of gross floor ! Required area Proposed banquet and' dance hall 5,936 s . ft. 6.7 ` 39.7 Sons of Italy hall 4,894 sq. ft. 6.7 32.7 existin Total 10,830 s . ft. - 72 (1z> rn a'n nor (19) W (20) Thi tfla ab~ rates above the citywide average. 12eporting,District 1623, loc district with a'crime rate.: below the;citywide average (20 percei Department opposes the request due to the high crimeYate in issues associated with patrons utilizing off-site parking. This c crossing Anaheim Boulevard to access the parking lot next to. antl vice versa, and potential neighborhood disturbance from,E surrounding residential streets. (21) Staff believes hat if properly conditioned to address compatibi operation of the proposed community and religious assembi,f community celebrations and events without disturbing nearby Specifically, the applicant has proposed a contractual agreemE parties stipulating strict ttiles pertaining to the ervice of alcohi security guards, complimentary valet parking'and a clean, well operational limitations are a part of the exhibits for this ~equesl requirement of this conditional use'permit. (22) Planning Department staff shares the Police Department's cor public dance ftali portion of this request, Potential issues with' could be easily monitored by the business operator since a col drafted with the customer. The operational restrictions impose combined with the recommended conditions of approvaLwould potential disturbance issues associated with banquets and oth~ However, the combination of opening the doors to the public ai beverages associated with the public dance hall could tie detrii residential neighborhoods. Most of the nightclub-type businesi considered in3he recenk'past have,been in non-residential are. sufficient on-site parkingi= neither of which is the case with th concerns with'night club-type activity taking place in an area wi above the citywide average. FINDINGS (23) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforce Zoning Code, a modification may tie granted for the purpose of assuring that i because of special circumstances applicable o it, shallbe deprived of privileg enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose's is to prevent discrimination and none shall be'approved which would have the granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown: (a) That there are;speciaf circumstances applicable to the property suc topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other id properties in the vicinity; and (b) ( Than strict application bf the Zoning: Code deprives theproperty of p by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (24) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must m; fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions ezis Staff Report to the Plarning Commission February 23; 2005 Item No. 2 (a) That the proposed`use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the`Zoning Code, or is an'unlisted use as defined in Subsection °t). (Unlistetl Uses Permitted) of Section 18'.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the'adjoiningJand uses or the grc and development of the area`in which i€s proposed to be located; (c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to'allow the development of the proposeduse in a manner not`tletrimental to the particular aj or to thel health antl safety; i (d) That the raffic 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 ! (e) That the`granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if a will not fie detrimental to the fiealth and safety of the citizensof the City`of Anahe RECOMMENDATION: (25) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting; and based upon the'evidence ubmitted to the Planning Commission, including tfi n~~ir{nnnn nrnnnn{..rA in {{~~n n{..K rn....rL n...! .. r..f ~.~J ...JU ...J t~J .l {L....LI. Page [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2005--' A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952 BE GRANTED, IN PART 400-408, 416-417 AND 424 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL 1: 407 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD -THE ORIGINAL BUILDING LOT 5, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF LANDS OF ANAHEIM, BOOK 4 PAGES 629 AND 630 DEEDS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF AS GRANTED TO PETER J. WEISEL IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1904, IN BOOK 98, PAGE(S) 364, DEEDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF AS GRANTED TO FREDERICK W. KELLOGG, IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 20, 1923, IN BOOK 462, PAGE 94 DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. PARCEL 2; 400-406 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD -LOT 5 IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S MAP OF ADDITION BUILDING-LOTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 349 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 408 N. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD -LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK A OF THE HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S MAP OF ADDITION BUILDING LOTS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 416 AND 417 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD -THE WESTERLY 122 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 81 '/z FEET OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S MAP OF ADDITION BUILDING LOTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249, OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THE SOUTHERLY 40.5 FEET IN THE EASTERLY 110 FEET OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S ADDITION TO ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249, MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA. 424 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD -THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S ADDITION TO ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET, AS fT EXISTED ON JUNE 28, 1973, SAID POINT BEING 100.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 100.00 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 119.50 FEET TO A POINT 112.00 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF HERMINE STREET (NOW KNOWN AS CLAUDINA STREET), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 100.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 119.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS., the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to Cr\PC2005-0 -1- PC2005- investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the February 23, 2005, Planning Commission meeting; and °` WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and .after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040.0402 to permit a public dance hall, banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot with waivers of the following: (a) SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010 Minimum landscaped setback 15 feet required; 9 feet proposed) (b) SECTION NO. 18.40.060 Required street dedication and improvement (DELETED) 2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) is approved based on the special circumstances applicable to these properties such as size and location, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. Many of the buildings along Anaheim Boulevard north of Lincoln Avenue have no setback adjacent to the street. Further, no new construction is proposed; rather Parcel 2 would be paved to provide parking for the facility. Since no new construction is proposed and surrounding properties under similar zoning have no building setbacks, strict application of the Code would deprive the applicant of privileges currently enjoyed by properties in the immediate vicinity. 3. That the requested waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question, since the adjacent properties along Anaheim Boulevard are developed without the required landscaped setback. 4. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is hereby denied on the basis that it has been deleted subsequent to advertisement. 5. That the request for a public dance hall would be detrimental to the surrounding residential area because of the land use compatibility issues associated with nightclub-type businesses such as noise, loitering, fights and public drunkenness. 6, That the banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot as conditioned herein and with the operational restrictions stipulated by the applicant including valet service, security and contractual restrictions will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 7. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety provided that valet service is offered and that security is employed to deter any unlawful conduct and to prevent disturbance to adjacent residential neighborhoods; 8. 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 9. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. -2- PC2005- 10. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. - - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Dlrectgr or her authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit in part, denying the public dance hall and approving the banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division. 2. That the legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. A Certificate of Compliance shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot. 3. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will tie responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. • Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. - 4. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite, • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 5. That the developer shall construct tree wells and street trees along Adele Street between Anaheim Blvd and Claudina Street. A bond shall be posted for the required improvements in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a grading permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shall'be obtained from the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department for all work performed in the public right-of-way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. 6. That the developer shall submit a cash payment in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to pay for the required street improvements along Sycamore Street. The cash payment shall -3- PC2005- be paid to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. The cash payment shall be refunded if the street designation is reclassified through a General .Plan Amendment approved by the City Council. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 53-feet in width from the centerline of the street along,Anaheim Boulevard, 30-feet along Adele Street, 30-feet along Claudina Street and 32-feet along Sycamore Street, including corner cut-offs for road, public utility and other public purposes. Offers of dedication along Anaheim Boulevard shall contain specific conditions that allow the City to accept the easement dedication offer if the City Engineer approves street improvement plans to widen Anaheim Boulevard. Said offer of dedication shall also offer to compensate property owner for any required refacing of existing buildings encroaching into the ultimate right-of-way. If streets are redesignated under an approved General Plan Amendment or abandoned by the Ciry Engineer and the irrevocable offers of dedication are no longer required, then the applicable dedication offers shall be terminated by the City. 8. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased andlor dead. 10. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner, which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manages 11. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 12. That the driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 115. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 13. That the business on Parcel 1 shall provide a complementary valet service to minimize pedestrian crossing on Anaheim Boulevard. Information pertaining to the valet service shall be provided to potential customers holding private events at this facility. 14. That the property owner shall provide a loading zone for the valet parking service. A plan shall be submitted tp the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. 15. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 16. That roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18,38.170 pertaining to the CG (General Commercial) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 17. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc„ shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.). 18. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner's expense, -4- PC2005- 19. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault - - shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or 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 the Water Engineering Department. 20. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 21. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 22. That all existing water services and fire Tines shall conform to current Water Service Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of fire line. 23. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as to number, size, placement, design and materials. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 24. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval. Said plans shall specify minimum 24-inch box sized trees and incorporate broadheaded trees on maximum twenty (20) fbof centers adjacent to the streets. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.. 25. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval 26. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 27. That the project shall provide for truck deliveries on-site. Such information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 28. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said lighting shall be decorative and complementary to the architecture of the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted far Police .Department, Community Services Division approval 29. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shad be completed and submitted in a completed form to the Anaheim Police Department. In addition, the operator shall provide the Code Enforcement Division with a contact name and phone number in the event a complaint is received. -5- PC2005- 30. That a plan for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 31. That an on-site trash truck turnaround shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 32. That the permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. 33. That at all times that dancing is being permitted, security measures provided shall be adequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering pr leaving the premises. The security measures implemented for each event, including the number of security guards shall be subject to review and approval by the Police Department. 34. That any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. 35. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 36. That the number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. 37. That the doors shall remain closed but unlocked at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. 38. That all employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatdmical areas" as described ih Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 39. That no minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to attend the dance, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. - 40. That the business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 41. That there shall be at least one meal of a substantial nature as described in Section 4.16.050.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 42. That the floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. 43. That there shall be ho amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 44. That no "happy hours type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be permitted. 45. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee(s). -6- PC2005- 46. That the petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. - .---- 47. That the petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks: 46. That no alcohol shall be allowed in the patio area. Signs shall be posted at doors stating "No alcohol beyond this point". 49. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.1, 2, and 3 and as conditioned herein. 50. That the business owner shall require a written agreement for private parties that enforces the rules and regulations pertaining to alcohol consumption for private events. 51. That there shall be no outdoor special events. No banners and balloons shall be displayed at 401 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. 52. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No, 3813 (to permit a motorcycle sales and service facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces), Variance No. 1486 (to establish a furniture re-upholstery service) and Variance No. 1105 (to permit the sale and installation of mufflers) to the Planning Department. 53. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight), seven days a week. 54. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 and 52, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 55. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 56. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 29, 36, 48 and 49, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 57. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. -7- PC2005- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18, .60, "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE pF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2005. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -8- PC2005- City of Anaheim P®~,~CE DE~~~~ gpecia] Operations Divlslon Amy Vazgnez To: planningDePart1°ent Sergeant Mike Lozean From: Vice Detail CC: January 26,2005 Date: CTJp 2004-04952 ~' Bangnet Facility 401 N• Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 C'to Pe ms a Publi CDance artment has received aUestD•ing • , with the sale and The Police DeP The applicant is req Faculty File 2004-04952. Assembly lace) alcoholic beverage Hall, Religious, and Communi eneral-eating P service of a Type 47(on-sale g license. which has a Crime Rate or6ng District 1624, Tract Number The locaeiocn nt above average• It is also with) o ulation allows for 6 off of 126 p This p P resently 6 873 which has a population of 10,041. sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are p ses in the tract. It alsol clense in the tractale licenses and there are licen g with 1 pending presently The census tract boundaries are: North Sycamore South Santa Ana East East Harbor West of the applicant: Off sale licenses in the immediate vicinity 401 N. East Street oln Avenue . 270 W 130 W • Linc • Llncoln AvS{ eet dway 926 E . Broa Anaheim Boulevard 301 S . Anaheimpolice Dept. 425 S. Hazbor Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 TEL: 714.765.1401 pAX; 714.765.1665 Memorandum Amy Vazquez Banquet Facility On sale licenses in the vicinity of the applicant 805 E. Sycamore Street 30 S. Anaheim Boulevard 20 S. Anaheim Boulevard 188 W. Lincoln Avenue 195 W. Center Street 20 S. Anaheim Boulevard (pending) The census tracts surrounding this location are as follows: North - 865.01 On Sale allowed 5/active 5 South - 874.01 On Sale allowed 4/active 1 West - 872. On Sale allowed 8/active 3 East - 863.01 On Sale allowed 8/active 5 East - 864.05 On Sale allowed 8/active 5 Additional Census Tract information: North West-g72, On Sale allowed 8/active 3 North East - 864.05 On Sale allowed 8/active 5 South West - 874.01 On Sale allowed 4/active 1 South East - 863.01 On Sale allowed 8/active 5 population 4,748 Off Sale allowed 3/active 5 population 3,058 Off Sale allowed 2/active 2 pending 1 population 7,371 Off Sale allowed 5/active 2 population 6,930 Off Sale allowed 4/active 5 population 6,699 Off Sale allowed 4/active 4 pending 1 population 7,371 Off Sale allowed 5/active 2 population 6,699 Off Sale allowed 4/active 4 pending 1 population 3,058 Off Sale allowed 2/active 2 pending 1 population 6,930 Off Sale allowed 4/active 5 The Police Department has responded to this location 1 time since the pre-file was done in October. The call includes: 1 burglary alarm. No reports were taken. Page 2 Memorandum Amy Vazquez Banquet Facility The Reporting District north of the location is 1524; it has a crime rate of 176 percent above average. The Reporting District east is 1625; it has a crime rate of 188 percent above average. West is 1623; with a rate of 20 percent below average, and south of the location is 1725; with a crime rate of 120 percent above average. The Police Department opposes this request due to the high crime rate in the area. We are also concerned about the parking issue. They will be parking patrons across the street in the Sons of Italy parking lot. The Police Department feels that the parking issue will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood with patrons not parking across the street and therefore impacting the neighborhood. Additionally we feel it would be dangerous for patrons leaving events and attempting to cross the street, possibly intoxicated. This could be detrimental to the public's health and safety. The applicant will have to apply for Public Convenience or Necessity with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Control. If PC or N is granted the Police Department requests that the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 2. At all times that dancing is being permitted, security measures provided shall be adequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of personsand vehicles, orto prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) 3. Any and all security officers provided shall comply with ali State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) 4. The operation of any business under this permit, shall not be in violation of any provision of the Anaheim Municipal Code, State or County ordinance. (Section 4.16.100..010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 5. .The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 6. The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a Page 3 Memorandum Amy Vazquez _.__ Banquet Facility conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code) 7. The doors shall remain closed at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. (Section 4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code) 8. The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental. to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 9. All employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code 10. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. (Section 4.16.030.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 11. No minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to attend the dance, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. (Section 4.16.060.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 12. The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act) 13. There must be served at least one meal of a substantial nature as described in Section 4.16.050.030 Anaheim Municipal Code. 14. The floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. (Section 4.16.050.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) 15. The business shall be maintained as a legitimate restaurant as defined in Section 18.01.190 Anaheim Municipal Code, and contains an area designed and utilized for food preparation which constitutes not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area of the establishment. (Section 4.16.050.030 Anaheim Municipal Code) 16. Any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) Page 4 Memorandum Amy Vazquez Banquet Facility 17. There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 18. No "happy hour type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed. 19. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee(s). 20. Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. 21. Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. 22. No alcohol shall be allowed in the patio area. Signs must be posted at doors stating "No alcohol beyond this point". Please contact me at extension 1451 if you require further information in regards to this matter. f:\homelmminvin\2004-04952 CUP aanquet Facility.doc Page 5 ITEM N(1 _ 3 J AGRICULTURAU VACANT TERANIMAR DRIVE ~ ~ RS-2 I ~ ~ D RS-2 i0-39 ~ 1 DU EACH ~ = ;0 = 1 DU EACH ' N < t9 LLl ~ Z N Q N W !r ~ ~ Ir ~ RS-2 ~ D ~ 1 DU m RS-2 1 DU EACH W Z W Q Z , ~ ~ W RM-0 a ~ RCL 77-71 . V ~¢ j APTS. > C-G h RCL 63-64 o RCL 61-6; CUP 3p( m I VACAN r ~ I c-G 135 RCLfi360- 36 RCL 61-fi2~ VAR 367: PCN 97-p =w T - 1 DU i T 1DU T VACANT RS-2 1 DU EA GLEN HOLLY DR RM-4 RCL 64-65-32 VAR 3487 APTS. RM-0 RCL 76-77-35 VAR 2667 APTS. RM-0 RCL 62-63-109 APTS. 1 _.. _ RCL RM-0 { APTS. RM-2 RCL 74-75-33 RCL 85-fi6-116 (M 16633 ~. 2004-00141' 2004-049511 DU EACH ~ ;' ^ T T ~.N't~_. N ~ 1 DU EACH -~}~ -1 98 ' -®{ B ALL ROAD H (n H S C) K H !r O U 2 N ~7 F U1 U7 W Q (~ F to W D Reclassification No. 2004-00141 Subject Property Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04951 Date: February 7, 2005 Tentative Tract Map No. 1 fi833 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: ODON MARCI Q.S. No. 10 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00141 -REQUEST RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE T (TRANSITION) ZONE TO THE RM-1 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04951 -REQUEST TO PERMIT A 16-UNIT ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16833 - TO ESTABLISH A 1-LOT, 16-UNIT ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY AIRSPACE SUBDIVISION. 3117, 3121, and 3125 West Balt Road 1665 f I 3a. 3b. ;, 3c. !' 3d. FEB-08-2005 02 27 PN BOWMAN REAL ESTATE 7149954825 P.Ol ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 3 Bonanni Properties/D.S. Products 5622 Research Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 February 8, 2005 City ol'Anaheim Planning Division Attn: Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner Judy P. Dadant, Senior Planner V1A FAX: 714 765-5280 RE: 31 17, 3121, and 3125 West Ball Road CEQA Negative Declaration ReclassiCcation No. 2004-00141 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04951 Tentative Tract Map No. 16833 llcar Ladics, Pursuant to our discussions on this matter with you today, please be advised that we wish to request a continuance of this item to the March 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Your continued consideration and cooperation is greatly appreciated. If'you have any questions, please call me ®714 995-4432 Sincgrely, ~ ~ ~. Walter K. Bowman Associate cc ITEM N0. 4 }~ tp ~N~Ni mm SP y;.1 ,n SP 9g11 pP 59 tB01 R~~~pR 3g5pR\SES Rp.E\-ENNG 1 j pARN' Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04953 4 Subject Property Date: February 23, 2005 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: MARC E. HERROUIN Q.S. No. 131 REQUEST TO PERMIT AND RETAIN AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY RETAIL SALES OF AUTOMOTIVE ITEMS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE PARTS DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2910 East Miraloma Avenue, Unit A - Topline Parts and Accessories 1678 SP 9q 1 pP 59 ~g01 Rp ~~p 31g5p ~~M M\ B NESS pPRK \` 9q-1 COMP PvEN~~ gp11 ~` rA\M S pP 5 55 (4 13~ R QG696 O wMA s p ~vENUE tp R~5'CP P c h m 1 ,U s OP\A1 6241 S SP g45.. ° ou ITEM N0. 4 pate of Aerial Photo: May 2002 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04953 Requested By: MARC E. HERROUIN Subject Property Date: February 23, 2005 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 131 REQUEST TO PERMIT AND RETAIN AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY RETAIL SALES OF AUTOMOTIVE ITEMS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE PARTS DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 2910 East Miratoma Avenue, Unit A - Topline Parts and Accessories is~e 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLf 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 2004=0~ SITE:LOCATION"AND DESCRIPTION (1) ':This rectangularly-shaped, 0.9=acr•i Miraloma Avenue, a`maximum tlep centerline of Red Gum Streef(2911 'Accessories). REQUEST: (2) sThe applicantr requests approva(o Section No. 18.120:050.050.0505't with accessory retail sales of autos parts distribution and'manufacturini BACKGROUND (3) :This property is developed with'onE (NortheastArea Speck Plan -Ind :Alpha Northeast Redevelopment Pi is designated for Industrial land usE lnaicares a rocai or sc;parKing spaces on me property. codefequves a minimum of spaces for the entire property based upon he following: Sr5210jr P ge 1 Use ~ Square ~ ,Coda=Required Parking Coi1e-Required Feet.' . ~ Ratio ~ ' `Parking 2910 East Miraloma Avenue 7,711 3.5 per 1,p00 s.f. of GFA SuiteA-AutoRe air 4 5.9 2910 East Miraloma Avenue 2,191 1.55 per 1,000 s.f. of GFA Suite A -Warehouse 3.3 2910 East Miraloma Avenue 478 4:0 per 1,000 s.f. of GFA Suite A -Office 1,g 2810 East Miraloma Avenue 420 5:5 per 1,000's.f. of GFA Suite A -Retail 2,3 2910 East Miraloma Avenue :.2,968 1:55 per 1;000 s.f. of GFA Suite B -Warehouse 4.6 2910 East Miraloma Avenue :232 4 per 1,000: s.f. of GFA Suite B -Office O,g 2910 East Miraloma Avenue 7;566 1:55 per 1;000 s.f. of GFA Suite C -Warehouse 11,7 2910 East Miraloma Avenue 434 4 per 1,000 s.f. of GFA Suite C -Office 1.7 Total 16,000 32 Page Page 4 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-` A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04953 BE GRANTED - (2910 EAST MIRALOMA AVENUE -UNIT A) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: LOT 17 OF THE EUCALYPTUS FOREST TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGES 29 AND 30, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 23, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use,permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the existing automotive repair facility with accessory retail sales of automotive items is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.120.050.050.0505. 2. That the existing use does not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located as it is consistent in nature with the adjacent and surrounding industrial land uses; 3. That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow its full development and operation in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety as the site has sufficient access and parking to serve the business and other businesses on the property; 4. That the traffic generated by the use does not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, does not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. That'*' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.. Cr\PC2005-0 -1- PC2005- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preservi:-the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division. 2. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 3. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead, 4. That customer parking spaces shall be striped and clearly marked for "customer parking only", and at no time shall customer vehicles be stacked, double parked, or left standing in tandem in front of, or adjacent to the buildings. 5. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a cpntrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 6. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles, vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all work on vehicles shall be confined entirely to the interior of the buildings. Absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vehicle parts or materials shall be allowed in the front or rear yard areas, or on the roof of the building. 7. That a covered, double trash enclosure shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. 8. That a plan for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 9. That an on-site trash truck turnaround shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 10. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No.1, and as conditioned herein. 11. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof,'be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. -2- PC2005- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 days of the issuance of the final invoice or- - prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forkh in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2005. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2005- L1o SE) 02-09 67.14 57.93 46Z 606 O-L (PTMU) 5B7 OFFFICE :ENTRE BUILDING NG ORANGEWOOD AVENUE no 1 I I1PTMII1 __SB~ IRas~LOf6Int mISEI. VACANT RLL 666J-ta k A6b3`hi3P3 I I RCL 99-OD-15 RCL 9E 1IPTMUI I (PTMUI ! Res. Or Int. to SE (Res. of h qcL So-svaa RCLZOw-6912s RCL 66-fi7-14 RCL fifi qCL 5657.93 RCL fie \ I CUP 2611 '- RCL 62-63-09 RCL SE \ aELTACL -:~ RCL 56-57.93 I (PTMU) ~\ \\ I RCL 9958-15 ,.p CUP 2003-04702 VAR \ \ I(PTA (Res. a/ Inl. to BE) ~ IND. FIRM ~ IND. F \\ \\ (RGL 9~1~11-15E RCL 66-67-14 ~. O \ RnCSL~B-~].~4 RCL 62.63-09 -z \ L RCL 56-57.93 ¢ o \ \ RCE ~~-r$~f°-~33 ~ ~ 1- \ ~ T-LVP 2°°I-w339 : EVEREST PRECISION ¢ 0 Z \ T-CUP 2°°3°a°fifi IIPTMU SHEET METAL x ~,,,~-~` ~ RCL 99-0b-15 m u O a ~~~~ ~ TTL~ ~B~~g)Yl (Res. °f Int. to S ) IND. FIRM § v m --- CUP 2633 RCL fifi-67-14 s ~ a O tt ~ COP]°69 qCL 5657-93 O ~ ~ ~ LL CUP a125 LUP 1030 IND. FIRM "' ~ ~ rc I MIS ]0°]-0°°>t' j ~ K ccuP zo°3-°ns3 ~ F- RCL 9t ZCA Z°°300025 r a N ~ (Res. 011 r ° RCL 5E ~1 qCL ~U06-00129 I CUP 200304666 k. ~ VAR 201 RCL 99.00.15 ,~ I .r ~~ (Res. of lnLbSE)," Q~ I~(PTMU) RCL 66A9-2] y ORANGI (Res o(Intent b CO): STAC RCL 99-00-16 RCL 6253 09 BUSINEE (Res. o/ Int. to SE) T-CUP 2002 04591 `: SM. IND \ RCL 5657 93 ! 'T CUP 200054234 f t CUP 2003047fi3 CUP 4125 I ~~ MI5 2003-00071 CUP 2003.04763 ;1 RCL 99-0045 ~\ ~ ~ ZCA 2003-00025: MI5 2003-00071 -, (Ras. of lnl. to SE) ~~ ` i ZCA 2003-00025 i SM. INO. ~~ 9WAQ MEET, ti 1\ FIRMS I .`. I M1 VAR 2003-( VACANT (SWAP MEET PARKING) Li: ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS ORANGE Cl7YClMlTS ~ ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE Miscellaneous Case No. 2003-00071 °r Subject Property Zoning Code Amendment No. 2003-00025 Date: February 23, 2005 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 Scale: Graphic Requested By: CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATERS Q.S. No. 119 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2003-00071 -REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 1) TO DESIGNATE 8.44 ACRES OF THE GATEWAY DISTRICT WITH THE TITLE SUB-AREA AND AMENDMENT TO TABLE 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE, TO INCORPORATE A MUTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (APARTMENTS) WITH ON-SITE TENANT BUSINESS AND LEISURE AMENITIES. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00025 - REQUEST Tp AMEND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE TO ALLOW AMULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT, SUB-AREA B, SUBJECTTO THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04763 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AMULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN CONSISTING OF 352 APARTMENT UNITS (A PORTION OF AN 084-UNIT COMPLEX STRADDLING THE CITY LIMITS OF ANAHEIM AND ORANGE). 2150 South State College Boulevard -former Orange Deive-In 1679 uurv mlt,u« IND. FIRM TIMBERLINE GAS LOGS I (PTMU) RC 99-00.15 VACANT (Res. riot. IL SE) RCL 666)-03 IIPTM01 -.. ..--_ RCL 56~SP9] L4MCOR IIPTInU) ELECTRICAL INL. VACANT ITEM N0. S Dale of Aerial Photo: May 2002 ~ Miscellaneous Case No. 2003-00071 Zoning Code Amendment No. 2003-00025 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 Subject Property Date: February 23, 2005 Scale: Graphic Requested By: CALIFORNIA DRIVE-1N THEATERS O.S. No. 119 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2003-00071 - REQUEST TOAMEND THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 1) TO DESIGNATE 8.44 ACRES OF THE GATEWAY DISTRICT WITH THE TITLE SUB-AREA AND AMENDMENT TO TABLE 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE, TO INCORPORATE A MUTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (APARTMENTS) WITH ON-SITE TENANT BUSINESS AND LEISURE AMENITIES. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO.2003-00025 - REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE TO ALLOW AMULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT, SUB-AREA B, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04763 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AMULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN CONSISTING OF 352 APARTMENT UNITS (A PORTION OF AN 884-UNIT COMPLEX STRADDLING THE CITY LIMITS OF ANAHEIM AND ORANGE). 2150 Sputh State College Boulevard -former Orange Drive-ln ts~s 18.20.030 and 18.66.0:10 to construct amultiple-family residential devel< Fvchstone Gateway Project) in the Gakeway District, Sub Area B'consisf apartment units with on-site tenant business and leisure amenities hereii tows the "Proposed Project" (the'proposed 20.8-acre project site straddt ofAnaheim and Orange with 352lunits in the City of Anaheim, in he Gat Sub Area B and 532 units in the City of Orange for a total of 884: units). ; BACKGROUND: (3) In 2001, he applicant presented to City,of Anaheim and City. of Orange staff th allowingia residential use on this 20-acre project site, a fonnerdrive-in'movie tl currently used on weekends as an outdoor swap meet. At that time the propo uses were not permitted for the project site by either the Anaheim or the Oranc and zoning designations. The Anaheim designations applicable to the norther) portion of the site included the Business OfficelMized Usellndustriat General'P designation, The Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and the ML (S Industrial - Sports'Entertainment Overlay Zone) zoning designation. The appli subsequently commenced processing amendments to those plans/designation the Proposed Project. That same year,' he City of Anaheim initiated a'comprel Citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program which included land` the Stadium Area to provide for a mix of uses including residential. From 2001 proceeded simultaneously on the proposed Archstone project and on the CityH Plan and Zoning Code Update Program. I General ;2 Page 3 Page 4 ~V. 7 'I 1 ~, ' W by4 i 1 4 1~ 1 k ~~' eJ~ _a'd t X ~. x+a ( ~~_'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ gi ti i ~(8 p~~` Y 1f1~; ~ 1L" a ~ x' e I t zip i ~' )! ~ t '~1~~ Gp'91 E4 ( ~ ~'~ ~_. I I~--'N ~ ~ ,~~eiE~r,~l ; ~~ ~~e~.111~11'L~~f ~~ 1 ,v a...~'~f ,.7..: ' ~.~ ~~ "r (.E, ~ j i ~ ~ ., i ~ ~~ ~1~ '` `~ ,~ d~~ ~ j ' "~' f ~~ t ; i~A i ?. yyryry®® t .~ .~ _ ~ ( ~~ , _ ~ ~ ~^C ~ z {, ~ vx+~' -~ ~ a~ $ 'f _, _ { t~ $ s f ( £' i 1~ ` is ®i .a "" ___i w i ' '. Y __ .. ~ r ~s r "-i ~_1__ ~ ~ [ i ,. ~ „~~. 8~~, ~ ~+ 1 ~ f d ~~;' ~ ~ ~ _~~.~. °~',~i ~~ ~ ~~~~ E, ~ ,`, ~, ~ f -, ~ ~, <,,~. ~~~ -~~~ i w , i i I~., , sF-W Lan '- Site'A Numb (q.UJ Averai Dwelli Densil ,Lotco Maxim Neigftl Averal Recrei perb. Clubfti locati3i Orange Avera~ Recrei nar nfl Proposed Structural Direction Setbacks 'Ad'acent Zonih North (adjacent!to fast food. 25 feet, fully landscaped I{PTMU) (Industrial-Platinum restaurant) Triangle Mixed Use Overlay) , Zane North (adjacent3o industrial 25 feet, asphalt; (forfire lane) I(PTMU) (Industrial-Platinum : businesses) and vertical trees Tdangle Mixed' Use Overlay) Zone East (adjacent to industrial 70 tb 80 feet (includes I;QndustrialjZone businesses) landscaping and 50 foot wide paved access way from Oran ewood Avenue Sduth ad'acehftoci ,limits None Ci of Oran e West (adjacent to State Minimum 13 feet', fully Not Applicable- Colle a Boulevard landsca ed submitted for construction wtll'be required to reflect the correcfright-of-way and setback dimension; (see recommended conditiodof approval number 43). (9) ' The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) further indicates a primary clubhouse with management and leasingoffices, asecondary clubhouse, three pool areas and spas, apooi cabana and a sports court, all located within the City'of Orange.: portion of the project site. The: site plan indicates a distance of 717 feet to the'primary clubhouse/recreation area (in the City of Orange) from the'furthest units in Building A in the City of Anaheim.: Building C located in, the City of Anaheim, will include an enclosed spa area in the center of the building and a ! Page 6 Buildin" /Cit ,One-Bedroom Units Two-Bedroom Units TotalUnits Buiidin AlAnaheim 195 118 - 313 Buildin A/Oran e ? 1 48 140 "-188 Buildin 3/Oran a '.133 211 = :344 Buildin C/Anaheimf 24 15 ;39 Totais ".400 484 ,:884 paricmg requires Buildin One BedroamUnlts .Anaheim L5 s aces re uired One Bedroom Units Orange 1.7 s acesFre uired Two-BedraomUnits 2.0 s aces re uired) Buildin A '- 195 48= 1256 I Buildin B 0 133: 211 Buildin C 24 0 15 Total:Units 219 181) 484 S aces Re uired i 329 3081 1968 Total S aces Re uired': :1,605 adjacent to the east side of'Building C. This north and east' vertical'accent/screen trees'and lawn. Vertical accent/scree on both sides of the private accessway from Orangewood A east property line. The applicant indicates medium and large size am trees w .....Orange ramp w (19) _ The Ian either s signs h wide mi approve (20) The apF anticipa Constru atbneti ENVIRONMEN ? (21) On Febi No: 328 day core DEIR ini Geology Use and Transpo further it forahe p A copy of thebElR was also provided l review period,': staff received eight corm parties regarding the DEIR. (good` idea! (23) On February 11, 2005 (12 days prior to .Comments document was made avails agencies/interested parties who providE to Comments documentwas also prow for`public review on the City's websiteis report. This document includes respon received during the review period in adi n s vu ier; apps c currently u Avenue). (29)' Due to the` processing developme applicant is approval of (30) The applies Gateway'D 1 Figure',10'(' Page 1! PTMU OverlayZone,'Gateway District Sub Area A PTMU;OverlayZOne, Gateway District Sub Area B Pro 'used r:Table 20-A'PRIMARY USESOf 18.20.030.010 Sable 20=A PRIMARY USES'of 18120.030.010 Dwellings-Multiple Family are permitted by right. Provide for the development of the Proposed subject to the development standards of 18.20, Project in Sub Area B subject o the approval of PTMU Overlay Zone (this includes the submittal Conditional Use Permit NoJ2003-04763 instead of of a Final Site Plan showing compliance with the requiring the approval of a Final Site Plan: and a Code). Development Agreement. The Code provision is proposed so it is clear that the entitlement would only pertain to the plans on ! file identified as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-'' 04763 8nd as described in paragraphs (6)'through (20) of this report. As indicated in the applicant's letter ofjustification (Attachment No. 2), fire applicant is requesting this change to comply with the development concepts of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Staff issupportive of this approach as the Proposed Protect plans were initially prepared in'advance of the establishment of the PTMU Overlay and even though there are changes proposed'to the Code (as described in this tattle), the changes (and fire proposed development plans) are consistent with the overall intentof the Overlay to provide for high quality projects with enhanced arohitecture, design and amenities. This same approach (referencing a specific conditionaluse permithumber) was also used id The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan in referencing the conditional use permit for the Anaheim Garden Walk ro'ecf Page 1 PTMU Overlay Zone, Gateway District: Sub Area A PTMU Overlay Zone,;Gateway District Sub.Area B Pro osed _ 18.20:170.02D.0201 A DevelopmentAgreement 18.20.170.D20.0202 Multiple-family development is required for ali development under the: PTMU as authodzed by an approved Conditonal Use Overlay in the Katelia, Gene Autry and Gateway rPermlt No.'2003-04763 is exempt from the Districts. 'requirement for the properly owner to enter into a `Development Agreement with the;City of Anaheim.' :The applicaht requests the projectfo be subject to' !the time limitations, conditions and mitigation .measures set forth for the proposed Conditional iUse Permit No. 2003-04763 insteatl of the :Standard Platinum Triangle Development Agreement.:: The applicant has submitted a letter bf justification (Attachment No. 2) agreeing to he ' payment of development fees associated with'The (Platinum Triangle Development Agreement. iThese fees„which pertain to fire, police, park, , 'library, traffic and utilities fees, areset forth as project mitigation measures. The applicant also proposes to abide by amaintenance covenant: which is intended to ensure that the complex is perpetually maintained'and operated as a high 'quality development. As all of the'key Development Agreement fee and maintenance provisions are incorporated into the proposed 'project and'as the entitlement would be tied to'the ::exhibits on'file for Conditiona! Use`Permft No. '2003-04763, staff is supportive of the proposed 'chap a to the Code. 18.20:090.020.0202 Aminimum five (5),fbot wide 18.20.165.010.D1 No minimum setback area is fully landscaped setback area shall be provided required adjacent to the interior southerly property for structures abutting an interior property line Ilne abutOng,the City boundary adjacent to the: Ciry' alongthe entire length of the,building. Where a of Orange. fence or wall is provided along or adjacent to the interior property line, the five (5) foot wide fully Building A straddles the City boundary and landscaped setback shall be measured from the 'the property line located between the Cities side of the fence or wall facing the property. of Anaheim and Orange; therefore, a setback is not provided adjacent to this'property line. The intent of the PTMU Overlay Zone regulation'is to separate buildings on adjacent properties with landscaped setbacks. "Since one building would stradtlle the City boundary/property line;the landscapesetback requiremenfis not needed. Page 12 P.TMU Oveilay Zone, Gateway District Sub Area A PTMU'Overlay Zone, Gateway District Sub Area B Pro `osed ` 18.20.090.02D.0203 Aminimum twenty (20) foot 18.20'.165.010.02 Where an oh-site driveway is wide setback between parallel walls of twa (2) provided between'iwo buildings, no minimum separate buildings shall: be provided. At least landscaped area is required;however, building forty percent (40%) of the setback area between walls shall be planted with clinging vines. the buildings shall be landscaped.:: Buildings A and C will be separated by a distance of 56 -YO 76 feet,;exceeding he minimum building i setback requirement betweenparallel walls. There'is a 43- to 69-foot wide decorative on-site driveway between Buildings A and C, bordered by 3- to 10-foot wide landscaped'areas including solid building walls planted with clinging vines. The Code amendment is proposed to allow a driveway to be provided between parallel building? walls and is needed to facilitate on-site traffic circulation. The proposed planterareas would provide a landscaped edge to the ddveway and would enhance the appearance of the building walls. 18.20.110.0101 Parcels°eight (8) acres or target 18.20;165.020 The required public park ptovision shall provide and construct an on-site public park and construction requirements prescribed in at a minimum of forty-four (44) square feet per subsection 18.20.110.0101 (Public Parks) shall unit, not beapplicable to development in Sub Area B; j however, payment pf park-in-lieu fees is required. Although the Proposed Project is over eight acres, no park is proposed; however,; an average of 506 square: feet of recreationaUleisure area is provided" per dwelling unit, exceeding the 200 square feet per dwelling unit required by the PTMU Overlay Zone. 'On-site amenities In the City ofAnaheim includecourtyard7andscape themes: Tropical Court with bamboo, pond and patios with: fables and chairs; Canopy Grove with pathway, benches and landscaped berm; BBQ areas; Palm Court with grid ofpalms,patios witfitables and chairs; Redwood Grove with fountain and patio with tables and chairs;'second float overlook (Building C) wifh'patio, tables and chairs, fountain and pathways wffh benches and enclosed spa area. Addftionally, the Proposed Project Is a paR of a larger complex which provides'for additional amenities (including two clubhouses) located within the portionof fhe project site in Orange. Together, these amenities meet the intent'of providing forlargerbn-site recreational facilities to serve the residents: Additionally, payment of park-in-lieu fees would be required. Page 13 PTMU Overlay Zone, Gateway District , , !PTMU Overlay Zone, Gateway'4istrict Sub Area A ;Sub Area'B Pro osed 18.20.140.040.0403 The wall plane of abuilding :18.20.165:030 The standards prescribed in facade shall not extend longer than elgftty (BO) Section 1820.140,040: (Architectural Massing) feet without a break in the plane no less hen +subsectiorr.0403 shall'not be applicable. three'(3) feet in depth. :All building;facades comply with fire PTMU OvedayZohe requirement except the north elevation of Building A where wall planes exceed the maximum length dr 80 feet (they vary from 32- to 142 feeflong) however, the proposed breaks in` the wall planes also exceed the required minimum bf 3 feet in depth; the proposed tireaks are from '29 to 39 feet in depth. ITherofore; the Proposed 'Project meets the overall intent to provide for 'visible differentiation in the building wall plane; 18.20:140.060.0610 All first floor exterior doors .18.20.165.040 The standards prescribed in i shalfbe hinged..Sliding glass doors are` Section 18.20,140.060 (Architectural Detail) permitted only above the first floor and on rear or ' subsection`:0610sholl not be applicable. interior side yarrl elevations'riot visible from public. rights-of--way or adjacent properties. Sliding patio glass doors are proposed on the first 'Floor, however, the only locaflon where said doors 'are oriented towards a public dght-of-way is along State College Boulevard. The visibility of these sliding doors from State College Boulevard is i IimHed due to theirlocation (the patios are located 28 to 68 feet from the right-of-way, which far 'exceeds the minimum'13-footsettiack required by the PTMU Oveday Zone), and the proposed 'landscaping in the settiack area ;The requirement for hinged`exterior doors was Intended for entrances cleady visible from public rights-of--way. 18.20.140.110.1102 When residential ground 78.20.165.050 The standards prescribed in floor use is adjacent to an arterial street,'the ;Section 18:20.140.110.1102 (Arterial Streets ground floor shall!be designed to provide the Residentiaf Ground Floor) shall not be applicable. following: .01 At least one (1) resident(al entry into a Communal entrances are located along State communal lobby or courtyard per block. ' College Boulevard; however they provide access to corridors open to atriums and courtyards Instead of communal lobbies. .02 Residential entry stoops, patios or communal Communal entries are located on-grade, 13, 42 entries shall be at least eighteen (18) inches and 50 feeffrom the public right-of-way and above(the sidewalk grade. behind a wrought Trod fence. Patios Nsible to 'State College Boulevard are located 28 to 68Yeet from State: College Boulevard. These setbacks. `meet or exceed the minimum 5- to 13-foot settiack .required by thePTMUbvedayZone. The increased setback, landscaping and fence will provide the privacy intended by the`elevated patios and entries required by the PTMU Overlay ': 'Zone (32) The applicant has. submitted a letter ofjustificatioh (Attachment No. 2)' for tit zoning'code amendments to the PTMU Overlay Zone. Staff supports'this re extensive review`of the Proposed Project based`upon the analysis provided above, and the following unique characteristicsof the project locatiortand tfi design:`: ~~~ ~ ~ ~d< <~ ~e site dna snape or me s¢e is aaequare ra proposed'use in a manner not`detrimental to the p safety; (d) ,That the traffic generated by the use will not impose and highways designed and improved to parry the Pai ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN, GATEWAY DISTRICT ~nnis2oos-ooo~~> {DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2005--*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO " THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND'USE PLAN WHEREAS, on January 29, 1999, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and did recommend to the City Council the approval of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Pian to provide for economic development and enhancement of the area surrounding and including the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim; and that said area (known at the time as the Anaheim Stadium Business Center) is bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern Califomia Edison Company right-of-way to the north; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Resolution No. 99R-39 approving the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 321, adopting a Statement of Findings and Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 in conjunction with its. adoption of Resolution No. 99R-38 approving General Plan Amendment No. 361 re-designating the Anaheim Stadium Business Center as "Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial" and making certain amendments to the Circulation Element and to the Safety and Seismic Safety Element; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council bf the City of Anaheim adopted Resolution No. 2004-95 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 in conjunction with the approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00029, Reclassification No. 2004-00117, Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SPN 2004-00023), Amendment No. 2 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SPN 2004-00024); and other related actions; and adopted .Resolution No. 2004-94 certifying Final EIR No. 330, adopting a Statement of Findings and Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Programs (Mitigation Monitoring Program No, 122 for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update, the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring :Program No. 106 for The Platinum Triangle and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085a for the Anaheim Resort Expansion Area) associated with the project ("final EIR No. 330"); and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 provided for a comprehensive citywide General Plan Update which included redesignating land uses within an approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west and the Southern California Edison Company right-of-way on the north (referred to as "The Platinum Triangle") from Commercial Recreation and Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed Use, Office High, Office Low, Industrial, Open Space and Institutional, generally corresponding to the property subject to the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, except for approximately 15 acres adjacent to the east side of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, north of Katella Avenue, and further depicted in Attachment A to Resolution No. PC2004-82; and WHEREAS, the recently adopted General Plan envisions The Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing., employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways., transit systems and pedestrian promenades (set forth in Goal 15.1 of the Land Use Element); and WHEREAS, the recently adopted General Plan includes policies in the Land Use Element and the Community Design Element to implement the vision for The Platinum Triangle including providing for more detailed planning efforts to guide the future development of The Platinum Triangle; encouraging mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and higher density residential land uses; encouraging a regional inter-modal transportation hub in proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim; maximizing and H:/dots/staffreports/resolution/cup2003-04763-2.doc-1- PC2005--"* capitalizing upon the view corridor from the Santa Ana (I-5) and Orange (SR-57) Freeways; maximizing views and recreation and development opportunities afforded by the area's proximity to the Santa Ana River; developing a comprehensive Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines to implement he vision for The Platinum Triangle; providing for a mix of quality, high-density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access; developing a Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program to enhance the visibility and sense of arrival into The Platinum Triangle through peripheral view corridors, gateways, and specialized landscaping; developing a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering places, ground-floor retail, and street-level landscaping; encouraging extensive office development along the highly visible periphery of the area to provide a quality employment center; developing criteria for comprehensive property management agreements for multiple-family residential projects to ensure proper maintenance as the area develops; and identifying and pursuing ppportunities for open space areas that serve the recreational needs of Platinum Triangle residents and employees; WHEREAS, the adopted General Plan establishes a maximum development intensity for The Platinum Triangle for up to 9,175 dwelling units (at an intensity of up to 100 dwelling units per acre), 5,000,000 square feet of office space, slightly over 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses, industrial development at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 and institutional development at a maximum floor area ratio of 3.0; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the Anaheim City Planning Commission considered Environmental Impact Report No. 128 (including Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations); Amendment No. 1 to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2003-00071); Amendment No. 1 to The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zane; and Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 for amultiple-family residential development (the Archstone Gateway Project) (the "Proposed Actions"); and WHEREAS, The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which was approved by the Ciry Council on August 17, 2004,. by its Resolution No. 2004-178, provides for the implementation of the General Plan vision, goals and policies for The Platinum Triangle and will serve as a blueprint for future development and street improvements within The Platinum Triangle, including setting forth planning principles, development intensities, conceptual street, park and potential new signalized intersection locations and streetscape designs including, but not limited to, landscaping, lighting fixtures and street furniture and by identifying the existing Amtrack/Metrolink Station and the conceptual Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) location. WHEREAS, staff has recommended that The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan be amended to revise Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map to establish new Sub Areas A and B and amend Section 3.6 Gateway District to reflect the new Sub Areas (Amendment No. 1); and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 23, 2005 at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 (Procedures), to hear and consider evidence for and against said Proposed Actions to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That_Amendment No. 1, establishes the boundaries of Sub Areas A and B in the Gateway District and reflects the new Sub Areas in "Section 3.6 Gateway District'. H:/does/staffreports/resolution/cup2003-04763-2.doc-2- PC2005-*** 2. That Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan for The Platinum Triangle. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed DEIR No. 328, including Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, and made certain findings and recommendations by its Resolution No. PC2005- determining that DEIR No. 328 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions and - recommending, as set forth in said Resolution, that the City Council, as lead agency for the Proposed Actions, based upon .its independent review of DEIR No. 328 prepared in connection with the Proposed Actions determine that the Proposed Actions are within the Scope of DEIR No. 328; are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions, including the subject proposal, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA; and, that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Proposed Actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, to incorporate the changes identified in Attachment No. 1 to this Resolution. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of .2005. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment to this resolution: Attachment No. 1 -MIS Case No. 2003-00071 Figure 10:Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location Map H:/docs/staffreports/resolution/cup2003-04763-2.doc-3- PC2005-`** Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.6 Gateway District The underlying zones for the Gateway District are the I (Industrial) and 0-L (Low Intensity Office) Zones. The I Zone allows for industrial employment opportunities, research and development, repair services, wholesale activities, distribution centers and manufacturing and fabrication. The O-L Zone provides for a variety oflow-intensity office uses that are typically three stories or less in height. Aptly named, this district provides the entry experience into both the city and The Platinum Triangle from the south and west. The Gateway District is divided into Sub Areas A and B, in order to provide for the development of Sub Area B pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763. Development Principles include: c Implement the palm tree and canopy free plaritirigs along Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevazd. e Provide landmark architecture that addresses the intersection of State College/Orangewood Avenue. e Provide bike lanes along Orangewood Avenue and connector streets to provide an important link to the Santa Ana River regional [rail system. arts " Figure 10: Gateway District Underlying Zoning and Location N1ap August 23, 2004 25 Sub Area A ,'~~ ~„'~{ Sub Area B ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPLICANT'S LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS -®®~- ROBERTSON PROPERTIES GROUP February 7, 2005 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Re: Archstone Gateway Apartments - 2150 South State College Boulevard Dear Commissioners, ~. ~ ~~~~ ~f 2005 pLANNIN~ c DEPARTMENT a -~ M. MANAVIAN. nin ~> > v`7~ xssioeNr z~9zs~nz~~titi , 72~ N. R08ERTSON BLVD.. LOS ANGELES. CA 90048-3102 rnonle 310.BSS.R484 fnz: 310.652.8538 Due to the Cities recent adoption of the General Plan update and Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, a General Plan Amendment and Reclassification to the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone for the above-noted property aze no longer necessary. The current land use designation is Mixed Use, which allows multi-family residential development. We plan to submit a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applicafion and abide by a maintenance agreement; therefore, a fmal site plan .and development agreement aze not proposed for the Archstone Gateway Aparoents project. Although we will not be proposing a development agreement, we have agreed to the payment of development fees, with the exception of sewer fees, at"the time we obtain building permits as established byShe Platinum Triangle. An amendment to thePlatinum Triangle MasterLand Use Plan and Zoning Code aze requested as described below. Please accept this letter as notification by RPG Orange, LLC, owners of the property located at 2150 S. State College Blvd., to request the following zoning and code amendments for the proposed Archstone Gateway Apartments project. •~ 1) Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan - to create Sub-Area B to encompass the property for the Archstone Gateway Apartments project; and 2) Zoning Code Amendment - to amend the regulations of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to incorporate development standards for the Archstone Gateway.Apartments project subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and to exempt this project from the Final Site Plan and Development Agreement requirements. At the time we started designing the Archstone Gateway project, the Platinum Triangle had not yet been established. Since the beginning, the architecture and building layout has remained virtually unchanged. We were faced with the challenge of designing a project that would satisfy the requirements of both cities given the unique condifion that the city boundary line traverses the property. However, our intent has always been to design a cohesive project while respecting and combining the standards'of both Cities of Anaheim and Orange. By the time the Platinum Triangle was established; the project design and details have been significantly developed that in order to comply with`all of the Platinum Triangle development standazds; we would have [o redesign the project. After reviewing the zoning and development standards established for the Platinum Triangle, we recognized that there aze several azeas, in which we do not meet the standards. However, we feel we have provided enhancements and features that improve the project as explained and detailed below. a) The Platinum Triangle requires a five (5) foot wide fully landscaped setback azea for structures abutting an interior property line. The property configuration is such that the current building layout provides for the most efficient and best use, allowing for maximum landscape azeas throughout the project. Therefore, Building A Straddles the City boundary line and the five foot setback azea between structures and the interior property line cannot be met. b) A minimum of twenty (20) foot wide setback between pazallel walls of two sepazate buildings with at least 40 percent (40%) of the setback azea between the buildings shall be landscaped. The area between Buildings A and C is more than 20 feet wide, however, the azea is used for both a driveway and landscape. Therefore, it does not meet the 40% landscape requirement. In order to meet this landscape requirement, the distance between the buildings would need to increase or the garage entrance to Building C would need to be relocated directly off S. State College Blvd. Although we do not meet the 40% landscape requirement in the driveway azea, our setback along State College Blvd. is 13' to 68', meeting or exceeding the minimum 13' required on State College, which we consider provides a greater enhancement through the addition of more landscaping to a more highly visible azea. c) The Platinum Triangle also requires pazcels greater than eight (8) acres to provide anon-site public pazk. We are planning a private gated community with resort-style amenities to include a junior Olympic size pool, additional pools and spas, lusciously landscaped themed courtyazds with seating areas and water features, BBQ azeas with tables and chairs for resident use and enjoyment. In addition, we are planning to pay in-lieu pazk fees as our contribution to public pazks. d) Wall planes of building facades shall not extend longer than eighty (80) feet without a break in the plane no less than three (3) feet in depth. Again, the project was designed prior to this code requirement; however, the only azea that we do not meet this requirement is the north elevation of Building A. Although the building along the north does not meet the 80 feet requirement, the breaks in the wall planes exceed the 3' depth requirement, ranging between 29' - 39' in depth, which provides greater azchitectural relief. e) The Platinum Triangle also requires that all first floorexterior doors be hinged. The only fast floor units whose patio doors may be visible from the right-of-way aze those along State College Blvd., which are set back approximately 28' to 68' from the right-of-way, far exceeding the 13' setback requirement. The additional landscape beyond the 13' setback requirement, we feel, provides enhanced buffering and screening from view of the patio doors. Furthermore, the patio doors aze recessed from the exterior building wall, which further decreases any visibility of the doors. Therefore, visibility of the patio doors would be minimal, if any. f) Lastly, residential units adjacent to an arterial street, at least one (1) residential entry should be into a communal lobby or courtyazd and residential patios shall be at least eighteen (18) inches 2of3 above the sidewalk grade. Although our residential entries provide access to residential corridors, we have created themed courtyards with seating to foster interaction among residents. Our patios aze on grade, which is consistent with those units located in the City of Orange. Furthermore, our increased setbacks would render the 18" high stoops virtually invisible. In good faith, we designed a project that would be cohesive while satisfying the requirements of both the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. In some cases, we could not meet the development standards as established by the Platinum Triangle, primarily due to the timing of the project design prior to establishment of the Flatinum Triangle. However, we feel, in the course of our project design, we have exceeded the requirements in may other areas that we think provide for a more enhanced overall project, some of which were described above. Should you need additional information or have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at (310)855.8484 or John Luedtke with Archstone Communities at (949)455.4500. Sincerely, Manavian, AIA Vice President On behalf of RPG Orange, LLC. CC: C. Hwang (via facsimile 949.206.1391) 3of3 AMENDMENT NO. 3 DRAFT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PTMU OVERLAY ZONE (ZCA2003-00025) ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18.20 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I That Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE immediately following subsection .010 of Section 18.20.030 of Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: "Table 20-A P Permitted by Right PRIMARY USES: C Conditional Use Permit Required THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE N Prohibited MIXED USE 'PTMU OVERLAY ZONE GF Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Residential Classes of Uses Dwellings-Multiple Family P Dwellings -Multiple Family in the C Subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003- Gateway District, Sub Area B 04763, as may be amended from time to time, and subject to the conditions and showings of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits), and further subject to Section 18.20.165 (Gateway District, Sub Area B Standards) and Sub-Section 18.20.170.p20.0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions). Dwellings-Single-Family Attached P Dwellings-Single-Family Detached N Senior Citizen Housing C Subject to Chapter 18.50 (Senior Citizens' Apartment Projects) Non-Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholic Beverage Sales-Off-Sale C GF Alcoholic Beverage Sales-On-Sale C GF Antennas-Broadcasting P Subject to Section 18.38.060 (Antennas -telecommunications) Automotive-Public Parking C Automotive, truck, trailer and other N vehicle sales Automotive-Service Station C Bars & Nightclubs C GF Billboards N Business & Financial Services P GF Breweries C GF Including the on-premise sale and consumption of beer or ale Commercial Retail Centers C "Table 20-A PRIMARY USES: P Permitted by Right C Conditional Use Permit Required. ,. _. THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE N Prohibited MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE GF Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions Community & Religious Assembly Computer Interne[ & Amusement Facilities Conversions of hotels or motels to semi- permanent living quarters Dance & Fitness Studios-Large Dance & Fitness Studios-Small Day Caze Centers Drive-up ordrive-through services Hotels & Motels Markets-Large Markets-Small Pawnshops Personal Services-General Personal Services-Restricted C GF C GF N P GF P GF C GF N P/C/N Hotels are permitted, extended-stay hotels are permitted by CU1 motels are not permitted (See Chapter 18.93 for definitions) P GF Outdoor farmer's mazkets aze allowed with a conditional use permit P GF N P GF On-site dry cleaning not allowed; conditional use permit require for Laundromats C GF P GF Public Services P GF Recreation-Bowling & Billiards P GF Recreation-Commercial Indoor P GF Recreation-Commercial Outdoor C Recreation-Low-Impact P Recreation-Swimming & Tennis P Recycling Services-Consumer P Repair Services-Limited P Rescue missions, shelters for the N homeless Reseazch and Development Facilities C Restaurants-General P GF Restaurants-Semi-Enclosed P GF Restaurants-Walk-Up P Retail Sales-General P GF Retail Sales-Kiosks P Retail Sales-Regional P Secondhand shops N Sex-oriented businesses, as defined in N Chapter 18.54 (Sex-Oriented Businesses) Subject to Chapter 18.48 (Recycling Facilities); reverse vendin€ machines located entirely within a stnrcture do not require any zoning approval Subject to Section 18.38.220 (Restaurants- outdoor seating ani dining) 2 "Table 20-A P Permitted by Right PRIMARY USES: C Conditional Use Permit Required ,. _ THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE N Prohibited MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE GF Ground Floor Commercial PTMU GF Special Provisions SNdios-Broadcasting C GF Studios-Recording P GF Swap meets, indoor or outdoor N Transit Facilities P Utilities-Major C Utilities--Minor P Uses or activities not listed, nor C As determined by the Planning Commission to be compatible with _ specifically prohibited the intended purpose of the PTMU Overlay Zone." SECTION 2 That Table 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MD{ED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE inunediately following subsection .020 of Section 18.20.040 of Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: "Table 20-D DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES: THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE District Maximum Dwelling Maximum Office Maximum Commercial Square Units Square Footage Footage Arena 425 100,000 100,000 *Gateway 1,750 530,000 50,000 Gene Autry 1;000 100,000 - 50;000 Katella 4,250 775,000 544,300 Stadium 1,750 1,760,000 1,300,000 *The Gateway District encompasses Sub Areas A and B as depicted in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan." SECTION 3 That new Section 18.20.165 be, and the same is hereby, added to Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows: "18.20.165 GATEWAY DISTRICT SUB AREA B STANDARDS Multiple-family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B shall be subjecf to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, as may be amended from time to time, as set forth in Table 20-A (Primary Uses: The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and shall comply with all off the previsions of Chapter 18.20 (The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) except as set forth in Section 18.20.170 (Implementation) or as set forth below: .010 The required setbacks prescribed in Section 18.20.090 (Structural Setbacks) shall be applicable except as set forth below: .Ol No minimum setback area is required adjacent to the interior southerly property line abutting the City boundary adjacent to the City of Orange. .02 Where an on-site driveway is provided between two buildings, no minimum landscaped area is required; however, building walls shall be planted with clinging vines. .020 The required public park provision and construction requirements prescribed in subsection 18.20.110.0101 (Public Parks) shall not be applicable to development in Sub Area B; however, payment of park-in-lieu fees is required. .030 The standards prescribed in Section 18.20.140.040 (Architectural Massing) subsection .0403 shall not be applicable. .040 The standards prescribed in Section 18.20.140.060 (Architectural Detail) subsection ..0610 shall not be applicable. .050 The standards prescribed in Section 18.20.140.110.1102 (Arterial Streets - Residential Ground Floor) shall not be applicable." SECTION 4 That subsection .020 of Section 18.20.170 of Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: ".020 Development Agreement. A Development Agreement shall be processed for all development under the PTMU Overlay in the Katella, Gene Autry and Gateway Districts, except as otherwise exempt under subsection 18.20.170.020.0201 and 18.20.170.020.0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions) per Resolution No. 82R-565 (Procedures Resolution) adopted by the City pursuant to Section 65865 4 of the Development Agreement Statute. The form of the Development Agreement shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179 on file in the Office of the City Clerk. A Final Site Plan found to be in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall be attached as an exhibit to said Development Agreement. .0201 Development Agreement Exemptions -Following construction and commencement of operation of a project that has been implemented pursuant to an approved Development Agreement, the following projects or improvements do not require a Development Agreement; however, plans for said projects or improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Deparhnent for review and approval for consistency with all applicable provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to the issuance of building, landscape or sign permits. (a) Interior building alterations, modifications or improvements which do not result in an increase in the gross squaze footage of the building. (b) Minor building additions or improvements interior to or at the rear of a building or development complex which aze not visible from the public right-of--way; do not exceed 5% of the building's gross square footage or 1,000 square feet, whichever is lesser; aze in substantial conformance with the building envelope; and, are in conformance with the Design Plan and the Zoning and Development Standazds set forth in this chapter. (c) Exterior fagade improvements which do not add to the gross squaze footage of a building or development complex, are not visible from the public right-of--way; and aze in substantial conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (d) Signage, including wall signs, and on-site directional/informational signs and which signs are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (e) Landscape/hazdscape improvements or modifications which aze not in connection with building modifications and aze in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 5 (f) Conditionally permitted uses that will not increase the squaze footage or pazking demand of the existing development as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer. .0202 Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub Area >3 as authorized by an approved Conditional Use Permit No, 2003-04763, shall be exempt from the requirement for the property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim." SECTION 5. SEVE]3ABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declazed for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declazed invalid. SECTION 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof .The provisions of this ordinance, insofaz as they aze substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, .shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments. SECTION 7. PENALTY It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six {6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a sepazate offense for each day during any portion of which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm or corporation, and shall be punishable therefor as provided for in this ordinance. SECTION 8. PENALTY. Except as may otherwise be expressly provided, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished in the manner provided in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of , 2005, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of ` 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ANAHEIM By MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 57090.1/smamJ2/7/05 ATTACHMENT NO.4 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N O. 2003-04763 [DRAFT]. RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-{***1 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04763 BE GRANTED (2150 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 OF THE LOCKHART TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 512 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 5.25 ACRE TACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY HARRY J. BRAINERD TO WILLIAM F. GADE BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 527, PAGE 276 OF DEEDS OF SAID LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GADE TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD COMMONLY KNOW AS'PLACENTIA AVENUE, AN EASEMENT FOR SAID ROAD WAS CONVEYED TO ORANGE COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1922 IN BOOK 444, PAGE 395 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 0° 09' 30" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 13 OF SAID LOCKHART TRACT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOCKHART TRACT; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LINE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO PHILIP LAUX AND ADELE H. LAUX, HIS WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 15, 1920 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 104 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 16° 56' 00" WEST 634.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 0° 10' 30" WEST 159.66 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY (60 FEET WIDE), DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1954 IN BOOK 2851, PAGE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 60° 43' 00" EAST 344.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE :NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GADE, NORTHEASTERLY 221.05 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE AN THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, FROM SAID CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY. ALSO EXCEPT THE INTEREST CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, FOR USE AS A PUBLIC STREET AND FOR USE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 14, 1963 IN BOOK 6804, PAGE 358 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT AT A POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET (60 FEET WIDE) AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE) (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE NORTH 0° 09' 30" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, 32.63 FEET TO AN Cr\PC2005-*** -1- PC2005-'** ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89. °50' 30" EAST 30 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 9° 09' 30" WEST 15 FEET TO CAN ANGLE-- POINT, SAID POINT BEGIN THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOS ANGELES STREET; THENCE SOUTH 60° 43' 00" EAST 15 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE NORTH 30° 16' 45" WEST 25.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE BY DEDICATION BEING RECORDING MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING DESCRIBED AS: THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 OF THE LOCKHART TRACT, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOX 4, PAGE 512 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND LOTS1 AND 2 OF TRACT NO. 71, AS PER MAPS RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAp ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1922 IN BOOK 444, PAGE 395 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DISTANT NORTH 0° 43' 42" WEST, 159:66 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY (60 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 10, 1914 IN BOOK 258, PAGE 59 OF SAID DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 59° 48' 48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 34.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY LOS ANGELES STREET), WITH THE EAST LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLACENTIA AVENUE) AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE, CONTINUING SOUTH 59° 48' 48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 309.76 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE 5.25 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO HARRY JAMES BRAINARD, ET UX., TO WILLIAM F. GADE BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 527, PAGE 276 OF DEEDS OF SAID LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 50° 03' 27" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND TO WILLIAM F. GADE A DISTANCE OF 25.52 FEET; THENCE, PARALLEL AND 24 FEET NORTHEASTERLY TO THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY LOS ANGELES STREET), NORTH 59° 48' 48" WEST A DISTANCE OF 118.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 342 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID 342 FOOT RADIUS CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 60° 32' 30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.38 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL AND 42 FEET EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE) A DISTANCE OF 546.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3° 15' 01" EAST A DISTANCE OF 250 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF ORANGE AS ESTABLISHED BY ANNEXATION NO. 79, ORDINANCE NO. 663, SAID BOUNDARY LINE 205.43 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF SYCAMORE AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89° 16' 18" WEST ALONG THE EXISTING CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 23 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL AND 30 FEET EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLACENTIA AVENUE) SOUTH 0° 43' 42"WEST A DISTANCE OF 1016.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTION THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. -2- PC2005- PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 1N TRACT NO. 71, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, WEST 1025..53 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON A DIRECT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, WESTERLY 747 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF. EXCEPT THE NORTH 567.04 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE RECORDED MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE (NOW STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 964, FILED IN BOOK 31, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT 71, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 0° 9' 30" EAST 179.99 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE RECORDED MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.. PARCEL D: PARCEL 21 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 30, PAGE 34 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 71, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID TRACT NO. 71, SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER ALSO BEING THE EAST QUARTER SECTION CORNER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS., THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, NORTH 89° 59' 00" EAST 275.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 01' 00" EAST 280.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0° 01' 00" EAST 287.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERLY 567.04 FEET OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF -3- PC2005- STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, RECORDED MARCH 22, 1920 IN BOOK 358; PAGE 19 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY--- ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND PASSES THROUGH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED PARALLEL LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 50.00 FEET: ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION THEREOF SET FORTH IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 30, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980262502, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 23, 2005 at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 (Procedures), to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; .and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the Anaheim City Planning Commission considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 328 (including Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, a Statement of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations); and WHEREAS, said date, the Planning Commission further considered Amendment No. 1 to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2003-00071); an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, ZCA2003- 00025); and Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763 for amultiple-family residential development (the Archstone Gateway Project) (the "Proposed Actions"); and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That pending adoption of an Ordinance amending the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone (ZCA2003-00025), the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No.18.20:030.090 (Table 20-A) to permit a high quality multiple-family residential development consisting of 352 apartment units in Sub Area B of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Gateway District (the 352 units encompass a portion of an 884-unit complex straddling the City limits of Anaheim and Orange). 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 as staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and the development achieves a project with architecturally enhanced elevations and recreational/leisure amenities for residents in the project, and further provides a project that is compatible and consistent with the General Plan Mixed-Use land use designation and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 3. That the proposed use will not, under the conditions and mitigation measures imposed, adversely affect the adjoining mobile home park residents or commercial and industrial land uses nor restrict the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 4. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety. -4- PC2005- 5. 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 as the proposed project has been --- --•-- analyzed in a Traffic Impact Study dated March 2003, updated April 2004 and June 2004, reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager (the approved study has been incorporated into Final EIR No. 328) and that the required infrastructure improvements along the adjacent streets will be constructed in connection with the project. 6. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 7. That [***"'***"] indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that [**********] correspondence was received in apposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed FEIR No. 328, comprised of DEIR No. 328, the Response to Comments document dated February 11, 2005, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, and all documents submitted as part of the public record on DEIR No. 328, and made certain findings and recommendations by its Resolution No. PC2005 '** recommending that the City Council certify FEIR No. 328 and adopt a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 and determine that FEIR No. 328 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions and recommending, as set forth in said Resolution, that the City Council, as lead agency for the Proposed Actions, based upon its independent review of FEIR No. 328 prepared in connection with the Proposed Actions, determine that the Proposed Actions are within the Scope of FEIR No. 328 and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions, including the subject proposal, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA; and, that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Proposed Actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the Cityof Anaheim: 1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2003-00071) and an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA2003-00025), now pending. 2. That this conditional use permit ("the Anaheim Permit") is granted subject to final approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00003, Zone Change No. 1215-04 and Major Site Plan Review No. 252-02 by the City of Orange (the "Orange Permits"), and further contingent upon continued compliance with all conditions of approval of the Orange Permits. Modifications to the Orange Permits shall trigger consideration of modification of the Anaheim Permit by the City of Anaheim Planning Commission, unless the City of Anaheim Planning Director determines that said modifications are in substantial conformance with the Anaheim Permit. 3. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation :measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. 4. That this permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution on February 23, 2007. 5. That no later than 30 days following the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. "' approving Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 2003-00025 relating to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the legal property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim satisfactory to the City Attorney agreeing to indemnify and hold 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 pf the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to attack., -5- PC2005- set aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related decision, or the adoption of any environmental documents or FEIR fJo. 328 which relates to the approval of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, all damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees~orexpert 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, passive or active negligence of the part of the City, its agents, officers, council members, employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council. 6. Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, the legal properly owner shall execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office wherein the legal property owner agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district(s) which maybe formed to finance Platinum Triangle infrastructure and/or maintenance, which district(s) could include the portions of the property in the City of Anaheim. The covenant shall not preclude the owner from contesting (i) the determination of benefit of such improvements to the property, (ii) the properties included in said district or area, (iii) the manner in which said fee is determined or (iv) the manner in which said improvement costs are spread. Electrical That the property owner/developer shall pay for an underground line extension to the nearest electrical source that has the capacity to serve their loads in an amount determined by the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. Any required relocation of City electrical facilities will be at property owner/developer expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all padmounted equipment shall be required outside the easement area of the equipment. Said .information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 8. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement far electrical service lines to be determined as electrical design is completed to the satisfaction of the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 9. That the property shall be served with underground utilities per the electrical rates, rules, and regulations (most current fees apply), and the City of Anaheim Underground Policy. Fire 10. That the surface for fire access lanes shall be as approved by the Anaheim Fire Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 11. That water supply for the automatic fire sprinkler system in Building 'A' which straddles the City boundary line shall be supplied from the City of Anaheim. 12. That a private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided. Planning 13. That the exterior building materials for the podium style building on the northerly portion of the property (Building "C") shall include ledge stone or equivalent material, approved by the Anaheim Planning Department, to match the enhancement materials utilized on the exteriors of the other buildings in the project. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 14. That plans for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department for review and .approval. Any decision by the Planning Services Division regarding the comprehensive sign program, may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommendations' item. -8- PC2005- 15. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. Said information shall be -- . _, specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 16. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials.. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 17. That the properly shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 18. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 19. That prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the legal property owner shall execute and record with the Orange County Recorder unsubordinated Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the entire Project in both Anaheim and Orange in a form satisfactory to the Planning Director, Public Works Director and the City Attorney, setting forth the requirements of Mitigation Monitoring Program No.126 and the conditions of approval in CUP 2003-04763 and creating maintenance obligations to maintain the project facilities (Maintenance Areas and Facilities) including, but not limited to, the items listed in Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution. 20. That vines shall be planted on solid building walls between Buildings A and C. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 21. That the property ownerldeveloper of the subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 (to establish an outdoor swap meet facility with waiver of required parking lot landscaping) to the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department. 22. That assigned parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 23. That visitor parking spaces shall be posted; "No Overnight Parking, Except by Permission of the Management" Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 24. That all above-ground utility devices shall be located on private property and outside any required setback area. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for the first building permits. 25. That the 6-foot high wrought iron fence adjacent to State College Boulevard shall not encroach into the required street setback area. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for the first building permits. 26. That the lower thirty percent (30%) portion of balcony rails shall be finished with a permanent, solid, building material that matches or is otherwise compatible with the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted far building permits. Police 27. That closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras shall be installed to monitor the parking structure and the mailroom on the second level of the parking structure to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. CCTV cameras shall be strategically located throughout the parking structure, covering all areas, especially all pedestrian and vehicular access points. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -7- PC2005- 28. That an address monument and/or complex map shall be positioned to be readable from the main vehicular or pedestrian access points without causing vehicular stacking and shall be illuminated during hours of darkness. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 29. That each individual building and unit shall be clearly marked with its appropriate building number and address. These numbers shall be positioned so they are easily viewed from vehicular and pedestrian pathways throughout the complex. Main building numbers shall be a minimum of 12 inches in height. Main building numbers and address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of darkness. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 30. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police pepartment, Community Services Division approval. 31. That pedestrian and vehicular access control shall be required to prevent unwanted entry. A digital keypad entry system which conforms to MM 3.11.1-3 of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 shall be included to facilitate quick response by emergency personnel. The system's entry code shall be provided to the Anaheim Police Department Communications Bureau and the Anaheim Fire Department. 32. That lighting on all levels of the parking structure, including circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works 33. That the property owner/developer shall obtain aright-of-way construction permit at the Putilic Works Engineering counter for all work within the public right-of-way. All improvements in the public right-of- way, including any repair of existing improvements damaged prior to or during construction at the site, must be complete and accepted by the Field Engineer prior to the first final building and zoning inspection. 34. That prior to grading plan approval, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained 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. The property owner/developer shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City review upon request. 35. Prior to grading plan approval, the property owner/developer shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 36. That sanitary sewers and storm drains within the development shall be privately maintained. 37. That the legal property owner of the subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim easements for street, public utility and other public purposes for the widening of State College Boulevard to the ultimate right-of-way (72-foot half width). 38. That prior to issuance of the first building permit, a lot line adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section (Development Services Division) of the Public Works Department to be reviewed -8- PC2005- and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to combine the three existing lots such that the buildings in the City of Anaheim lie completely within one {1) parcel. 39. That satisfactory proof of compliance that the legal property owner has entered :into an out-of-area sewer service agreement with the City of Orange as required by Orange Resolution No. PC 04-05 providing' that the City of Orange shall serve the portion of the property in the City of Anaheim, shall be submitted to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the City of Anaheim. 40. That prior to the issuance of building permits, a drainage study shall be submitted to document the existing and proposed drainage patterns. If there is an increase in discharge to the City of Anaheim facilities, the study must demonstrate that the existing facilities have capacity or mitigation will be required. 41. That a storm drain shall be constructed connecting to the Flood Control Channel as approved and permitted by the Orange County Flood Control District. 42. That the site plan shall indicate existing and proposed impervious area in acres (for storm drain impact fee purposes), gross area (in acre) to the centerline of State College Boulevard (for arterial highway beautification fees purposes) and identify all easements on the property and add a special note for any easements that are proposed to be abandoned or quitclaimed. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.. 43. That parkway landscaping along State College Boulevard shall be equipped with :parkway irigation tied unto the on-site irrigation system and be maintained by the property owner/developer. Said information shall be specifically shown on the Street Improvement plans submitted for work within the public right-of- way. 44. That plans submitted for building permits shall be labeled and dimensioned with the existing and proposed right-of-way, curb and gutter along State College :Boulevard.. That said plans shall reflect Street Section Figure 19, "State College Boulevard South of Gene Autry Way", of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan showing 59 feet to the curb from the centerline of State College Boulevard and a 6-foot wide landscaped parkway and a 7-foot wide sidewalk (half street width is 72 feet). Setback dimensions shall be based on the ultimate right-of-way. 45. That the property ownerldeveloper shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division to improve State College Boulevard per Street Section Figure 19 of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of the first building permit. A right-of-way construction permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work pertormed in the right-of-way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, Streets and Sanitation 46. That trash storage areas and trash chutes shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with exhibits approved in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit on file with the Planning Department, as said exhibits may be duly amended from time to time, and in conformance with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 47. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in substantial accordance with exhibits approved in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit on file with the Planning Department, as said exhibits may be duly amended from time to time, and in conformance with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -9- PC2005- 48. That as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13.4-1 of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, the proposed development shall operate in accordance with a written solid waste management plan to be signed, by the legal property owner, and included in CC&Rs for the project. Modifications to the solid waste management plan shall only occur if mutually agreed upon by both the legal property owner and the City of Anaheim Director of Public Works. Traffic 49. That the location of drop-off/pick-up areas and moving plazas shall be in substantial accordance with exhibits approved in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit on file with the Planning Department, as said exhibits may be duly amended from time to time. Any modifications to said areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 50. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 51. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 470, 471, and 472, pertaining to parking standards. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 52. That all driveways to the project site shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 53. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for any other purpose including outdoor storage uses. 54. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for signs and wall/fence locations. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building and sign. permits. 55. That all vehicular ramps and grades shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 402, and be approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 56. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the legal property owner shall make an irrevocable easement offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim 5-foot widths along both the north and southbound lanes of the private access between Orangewood Avenue and the development which area will be constructed by the property owner/developer to accommodate a Class II bikeway to Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan standards. 57. That the secondary driveway into the project from State College Boulevard shall be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -10- PC2005- Water 58. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area" in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or 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 submitted for approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 59. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and/or an easement for large meters, backflow devices and other public water facilities to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. Backflow devices and large meters shall be located above ground. 60. That all existing water services shall conform tp current Water Utility Standards on file in the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. Any existing water services that are not approved by the Utility for continued use shall be upgraded to current standards, or abandoned by the property owner/developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the property owner/develapec 61. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modification, relocation, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through and reviewed for approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 62. That prior to submitting the water improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department for 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. 63. That prior tc application. for water meters, fire lines or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department, an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates., Rules, and Regulations. 64. That because this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 65. That aII existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. 66. That prior to rendering water service, the property owner/developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. 67. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department for review and approval. A performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer, -11- PC2005- and the form approved by the City Attorney, shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. All required water improvements shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection. Timing 68. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by property owner/developer and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 12, and as conditioned herein. 69. That Condition No. 5, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. 70. That prior to the issuance of grading permits, Condition Nos. 6, 34, and 35 above-mentioned, shall be compilied with. 71. That prior to issuance of the first building permit, or within a period of two (2) years from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66 and 67 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 72. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 19, 33, 41, 45, 65, 67 and 68, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 73. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution fs expressly predicated upon property owner/developer's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court pf competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the property owner/developer is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resotution in the event of an appeal. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. -12- PC2005- CITY OF ANAHEIM I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that- the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2005. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -13- PC2005- EXHIBIT "A" II~AINTENANCE AREAS AN® FACILITIES As a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, the Gity - requires the LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER ("OWNER") to undertake and implement the maintenance of certain landscaping, private accessways and private utilities, and the performance of other obligations, as set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 and the Conditions of Approval of said Conditional Use Permit. Prior to the first final building and zoning :inspection for the first residential dwelling unit, OWNER shall execute and record with the Orange County Recorder a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&Rs") satisfactory to the Planning Director and the City Attorney creating maintenance obligations for the OWNER to establish a financial mechanism or financial mechanisms to maintain the following:. a. Private streets and street lights (including the private accessway from Orangewood Avenue); b. Private sewer and storm drain lines, together with all appropriate appurtenances;.. c. Landscape and courtyard areas and all drainage facilities (including, but not limited to, french drains, down drains, drainage swales, etc.); d. Landscape maintenance easements;. e. Parkway landscaping and irrigation f. Covered on-site storage for bicycles in the parking structure; g. Washer and dryer in each dwelling unit; h. Recreational amenities as depicted on exhibits for Conditional Use Permit No. CUP2003-04763 on file with the Planning Services Division of the Planning Department; Archstone Gateway Solid Waste Management Plan, the original signed copy is on file in the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Utilities Department attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. j. Class LI bikeway constructed and maintained by the property owner/developer to Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan standards (5-foot widths along both the north and southbound lanes of the private access between Orangewood Avenue and the development). The CC&Rs shall ensure that the maintenance of the project meets standards associated with luxury apartments, and provides mechanisms to enforce these standards. The property shall be permanently maintained in an attractive, safe and orderly fashion consistent with said standards, including regular landscape and other maintenance, prompt removal of trash or debris, parking and other controls and the removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. The obligations described above and depicted in the Maintenance Exhibit shall collectively be referred to as the "Maintenance Obligations." The OWNER shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Common Area and performance of the Maintenance Obligations, including any additional obligations which may be specified herein. Reconveyance of all or part of the Common Area or any property interest therein to a party other than the OWNER shall require (i) the prior written consent of the City, (ii) appurtenant easements over the Common Area for the benefit of each and every lot in the Property and (iii) that the reconveyance expressly affirm that the provisions of Civil Code Section 1367 relating to lien rights to enforce delinquent assessments and the CC&Rs shall remain applicable. The CC&Rs may provide any of the Maintenance Obligations may be assumed by a duly formed Platinum Triangle Infrastructure and/or Maintenance Assessment District subject to CITY's written approval. The covenants and restrictions set forth herein constitute a general scheme for the development, protection and maintenance of the Property for the benefit of all owners. Said covenants and restrictions are for the benefit of the Property and shall bind all owners thereof. Such covenants and restrictions shall be a burden upon, and a benefit to, not only the OWNER but also its successors and assigns. All of such covenants and restrictions are intended to be and shall be declared in the CC&Rs to be covenants running with the land or equitable servitudes upon the land, as the case may be. The CC&R's shall provide that termination of the CC&R's oi• amendment of any provision which may negatively impact performance of the Maintenance Obligations shall require prior written consent of the City. Termination of this Declaration is not a release of Declarant with .regard to Declarant's independent obligations in connection with development and approval of the Project or with regard to obligations and liabilities incurred prior to such termination. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO EXHIBIT "A" ARCHSTONE GATEWAY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN S®lC.~ VVAS~~ MANAG~~N~ AND ~CI'CILIIVG PLAN The Four Steps to complete the Plan are as follows: 1. Complete the checklist below. 2. Provide a site plan including locations of trash storage areas, trash enclosures, recyclables storage areas, grease storage azeas, and the route for trash truck Access. 3. Provide drawings with details of storage areas, enclosures, chutes and trash track access route. 4. Provide a brief written statement explaining the plan for the storage, collection, hauling, recycling and disposal of trash and recyclables generated at the project. Name of Project Archstone Gateway Address of Project 2150 S. State College Boulevard IDC Number For Project 2005-00004 Name of Planner Cheryl Flores Name of Project Contact Person & Company Cynthia Hwang, Archstone-Smith Ooeratin2 Trust; John Manavian. RPG Orange. LLC Telepbone/Fax Number/s 949-455-4541, fax 949-206-1391 Project Description Commercial Project Residential Project 884 Apartment Community (352 units in Anaheim. 532 units in Oran e Combination of Commercial and Residential in the Project No Size of Project 441.562 sf of building, 348.847 sf of pazking (Anaheim only) Type of Solid Waste Service Required for Project City Three-Yazd Bin Service X Number of Bins 11 City Automated Barrel Service Number of Barrels Bulky-Item Pick Up Service X Packer Service Packer Size Number of Packers Roll-Off Box Service Number of Roll-Off Boxes _ Roll-out Service X Number of Bins 11 Type of Recycling Service Required for Project City Bulk Collection (Bin) Service (Includes Recycling Service) X City Automated Barrel Service (Includes Recycling Service) Source-Sepazated Recyclables On-Site Baler Bin/Box Provided By Recycler/Hauler Type of Source-Sepazated Recyclable Materials Name of Hauler for Source-Separated Recyclable Materials Grease Container/Interceptor Type of Storage for Trash and Recyclables Two Bin Trash Enclosure Constructed to City Standard X Automated Barrels Stored in Approved Location Out of Public View Bulky-Item Storage Area X Source-Separated Recyclables Stared in Approved Location out of Public View Other Storage Trash Chutes X Trash Truck Access Plan On-Site Trash Truck Turn Around Required X Continuous Drive Lane From Entrance to Exit On-Site Hammer Head Trash Truck Turn Around X Street Collection Alley Collection Construction And Demolition Materials (C&D) Plan AsphalUConcrete Materials Soil Export Materials Landscape Materials Building Deconstruction/Demolition Materials The written Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Management Plan is explained as follows: See Attached Submitted by john Manavian, RPG Orange, LLC AItCI~STONE GATEWAY SOH.~HD i'VAS'H'E 1~IANAGEMEIVT PI.AIV INTRODUCTION The Archstone Gateway project would incorporate a Solid Waste Management Plan into the physical design and on-going operations of the residential community. The Solid Waste Management Plan is intended to: provide for the safe and efficient disposal and removal of solid waste from the property; and address the multi jurisdictional setting of the project within the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. The Solid Waste Management Plan would consist of the following two components, which aze discussed below: Design and Equipment; and Operational Procedures. DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT The disposal of solid waste at the Archstone Gateway residential development would occur through the use of two separate disposal systems; one for the City of Anaheim and one for the City of Orange. Each system would be comprised of: trash chutes that are labeled with each City's name on each apartment floor; dumpsters on the ground floor of the garages; a 35 cubic foot capacity trash compactor, storage for recyclables, and a bulky item storage area located within an enclosed structure on the grounds of the residential development. The trash compactors would each be configured to accommodate only the dumpsters used by their jurisdiction. The solid waste haulers for each respective City would have a key for access to the residential development via Orangewood Avenue and the private alley to the community to allow for removal of the compacted solid waste, recyclable materials, and bulky items. The following provides a discussion of the solid waste disposal system for the Residential Buildings. Buildine A Residential Building A provides 313 units in the City of Anaheim and 188 units in the City of Orange. To help ensure that trash disposed by the City of Orange residents will be disposed of in the trash room located in the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim residents wil] dispose of trash in the trash room located in the City of Anaheim, each trash room and each trash chute room door- will be labeled either "For Anaheim Residents Only" or "For Orange Residents Only" and trash chute room walls will be painted to coincide with the respective waste haulers' colors. The trash chutes in Building A would be located in the gazage, near the pedestrian walkways between the residential units and gazage on each floor. The chutes would empty into separate dumpsters on the ground floor of Gazage A. The dumpsters in the City of Anaheim would utilize a cartdumper configured for side pocket dumpster which would be transported to the Anaheim trash compactor located to the east of Residential Building C. The dumpsters in the City of Orange would utilize a cartdumper configured for bottom pocket dumpsters which would be transported to the City of Orange trash compactor located to the east of Residential Building A. Archstone Gateway Project Page I Solid Waste Management Plmt Versiorz 2/9/05 Building B Residential Building B provides 344 units in the City of Orange. There would be trash chutes in Building B located in the gaaage near the pedestrian walkways between the residential units and garage on each floor. The chutes would empty into dumpsters on the ground floor of Garage B_ The dumpsters in Building B would utilize a cartdumper configured for bottom pocket dumpsters which would be transported to the City of Orange trash compactor located to the east of Residential Building A. Buildine C Residential Building C provides 39 units in the City of Anaheim. There would be one trash chute located in the corridors of the residential floors of Building C. The chute would empty into dumpsters in Gazage C on the first floor. The dumpsters in Building C would utilize a cartdumper configured for side pocket dumpsters which would be transported to the City of Anaheim trash compactor located to the east of Residential Building C. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES The disposal of solid waste at the Archstone Gateway project would be addressed with the following operational procedures. e Prior to the execution of a lease, the leasing agents shall provide each resident information and instiuction regarding: each City's initiatives to reduce solid waste through recycling, the proper disposal of solid waste from their units into the appropriate trash chute within their building, and the proper disposal of bulk items, including the assessment of charges. ® The Community Management shall provide written directions regarding the proper solid waste disposal procedures within the Resident Services Directory. ® The on-site Maintenance Crew would receive training regarding the transport of dumpsters to and from thc appropriate trash compactor. ® The trash enclosures and trash chutes would be maintained on a regular basis to maintain clean and sanitized aeeas. Maintenance of the trash enclosures would involve collecting all debris and cleaning all wet and dry spills using an approved biodegradable cleaning solution. The trash chute collection areas would be vacuumed and disinfected with the approved biodegradable disinfectant cleaning solution. The trash chute chases and dampeners would be cleaned by applying a mist of an approved biodegradable disinfectant cleaning solution to the surfaces of the chutes and dampeners, followed by lightly rinsing with clean water and wiping them dry. --~tyl m~-~l~it~- Arcpttone Gateway Project page 2 Solid Waste Management Plan Version 2/9/05 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 DRAFT RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL EIR 328, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 126 ~EiRS2s) [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL (A) CERTIFY FINAL " ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 328, (B) ADOPT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND (C) ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 126. WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive verified Petitions for an amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) and a Conditional Use Permit, for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as set forth in Attachment 1 to this Resolution and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, said project is subject to compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, ("CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (the "State CEQA Guidelines") since said project requires approval of the following proposed discretionary actions by the City of Anaheim: (i) Amendment No. 1 to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2003-00071), (ii) an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (ZCA2003-00025), and (iii) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, which actions shall hereafter be collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Actions;" and WHEREAS., the Planning Commission did hold public hearings at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 23, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duty given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said Proposed Actions and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for said Proposed Actions, as defined in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has prepared, or caused to be prepared, Draft EIR ("DEIR") No. 238 and has consulted with other public agencies, and the general public and given them an opportunity to comment on said DEIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has evaluated the comments received from public agencies and persons who reviewed DEIR No. 328 and has prepared responses to the comments received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, said comments and recommendations received on said DEIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; and the responses of the City of Anaheim to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process have been included in the DEIR No. 328 and a Response to Comments document dated February 11, 2005; and WHEREAS, DEIR No. 328, the Response to Comments document dated February 11, 2005, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 and all documents submitted as part of the public record on DEIR No. 328 form the Final EIR for said project as required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines ("FEIR No. 328"); and Cr\PC2005- PC2005- [DRAFT) WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has prepared a draft Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to FEIR No. 328 in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim desires and intends to use FEIR No. 328 as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines for each of the above- referenced Proposed Actions to the extent authorized by law; and, WHEREAS, said FEIR and Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overziding Considerations has been presented to and independently considered by the Planning Commission of the City pf Anaheim for review and consideration prior to the final approval of, .and commitment to, said project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim that the Planning Commission, based upon its review of the Proposed Actions, FEIR No. 328, and the Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and having considered evidence presented at the public hearing on the Proposed Actions, does hereby recommend that the City Council, as lead agency for the Proposed Actions, independently review and analyze FEIR No. 328 and find that it reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and unless additional or contrary information is received during the City's Council's public hearing on the Proposed Actions, certify FEIR No. 328 and adopt the attached Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, acopy of which is attached hereto marked Attachment No. 2 to this Resolution, and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full herein; and, further, determine the following: that the Proposed Actions are within the scope of FEIR No. 328; that FEIR No. 328 has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines; and, that FEIR No. 328 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt that certain monitoring program described as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126" to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment to ensure compliance during project implementation, acopy of which Program is attached hereto marked Attachment No. 3 to this Resolution, and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full herein. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18:60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cr\PC2005- PC2005- [DRAFT] ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of -, 2004. _ , SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION Cr\PC2005- PC2005- [DRAFT] ATTACHMENTI PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF LOT /3 OF THE LOCKHART TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 512` " OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER pF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 5.25 ACRE TACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY HARRY J. BRAINERD TO WILLIAM F. GADE BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 527, PAGE 276 OF DEEDS OF SAID LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GADE TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD COMMONLY KNOW AS PLACENTIA AVENUE, AN EASEMENT FOR SAID ROAD WAS CONVEYED TO ORANGE COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1922 IN BOOK 444, PAGE 395 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 0° 09' 30" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 13 OF SAID LOCKHART TRACT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOCKHART TRACT; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LINE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO PHILIP LAUX AND ADELE H. LAUX, HIS WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 15, 1920 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 104 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 16° 56' 00" WEST 634.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 0° 10' 30" WEST 159.66 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY (60 FEET WIDE), DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1954 IN BOOK 2851, PAGE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 60° 43' 00" EAST 344.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GADE, NORTHEASTERLY 221.05 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE AN THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, FROM SAID CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY. ALSO EXCEPT THE INTEREST CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, FOR USE AS A PUBLIC STREET AND FOR USE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 14, 1963 IN BOOK 6804, PAGE 358 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT AT A POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET (60 FEET WIDE) AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE) (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE NORTH 0° 09' 30" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, 32.63 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89. °50' 30" EAST 30 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 9° 09' 30" WEST 15 FEET TO CAN ANGLE POINT, SAID POINT BEGIN THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOS ANGELES STREET; THENCE SOUTH 60° 43' 00" EAST 15 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE NORTH 30° 16' 45" WEST 25.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE BY DEDICATION BEING RECORDING MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING DESCRIBED AS: THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 OF THE LOCKHART TRACT, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOX 4, PAGE 512 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND LOTS1 AND 2 Cr\PC2005- PC2005- [DRAFI~ OF TRACT NO. 71, AS PER MAPS RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD ESTABLISHED BY DEED T6 THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1922 IN BOOK 444, PAGE 395 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DISTANT NORTH 0° 43' 42" WEST, 159:66 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY (60 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 10, 1914 IN BOOK 258, PAGE 59 OF SAID DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 59° 48' 48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 34.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY LOS ANGELES STREET), WITH THE EAST LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLACENTIA AVENUE) AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE, CONTINUING SOUTH 59° 48' 48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 309.76 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE 5.25 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO HARRY JAMES BRAINARD, ET UX., TO WILLIAM F. GADE BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 527, PAGE 276 OF DEEDS OF SAID LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 50° 03' 27" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND TO WILLIAM F. GADE A DISTANCE OF 25.52 FEET; THENCE, PARALLEL AND 24 FEET NORTHEASTERLY TO THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD {FORMERLY LOS ANGELES STREET), NORTH 59° 48' 48"WEST A DISTANCE OF 118.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 342 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID 342 FOOT RADIUS CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 60° 32' 30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.38 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL AND 42 FEET EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE) A DISTANCE OF 546.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3° 15' 01" EAST A DISTANCE OF 250 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF ORANGE AS ESTABLISHED BY ANNEXATION NO. 79, ORDINANCE NO. 663, SAID BOUNDARY LINE 205.43 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF SYCAMORE AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89° 16' 18" WEST ALONG THE EXISTING CITY OF ORANGE BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 23 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL AND 30 FEET EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLACENTIA AVENUE) SOUTH 0° 43' 42" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1016.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTION THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN TRACT N0. 71, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, WEST 1025.53 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON A DIRECT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, WESTERLY 747 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF. EXCEPT THE NORTH 567.04 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE RECORDED MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE (NOW STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 964, FILED IN BOOK 31, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Cr1PC2005- PC2005- [DRAFT] ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT 71, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE pF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 0° 9' 30" EAST 179.99 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE RECORDED MAY 7, 1970 IN BOOK 9284, PAGE 62 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL D: PARCEL 21 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 30, PAGE 34 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 71, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID TRACT NO. 71, SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER ALSO BEING THE EAST QUARTER SECTION CORNER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, NORTH 89° 59' 00" EAST 275.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 01' 00" EAST 280.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0° 01' 00" EAST 287.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERLY 567.04 FEET OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, FORMERLY PLACENTIA AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, RECORDED MARCH 22, 1920 IN BOOK 358, PAGE 19 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND PASSES THROUGH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED PARALLEL LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 50,00 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION THEREOF SET FORTH IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 30, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980262502, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALfFORNIA BY THAT FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JUNE 5, 1998, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980352437, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Cr\PC2005- PC2005- AT'I'AC~MEN1' S ~c s ~ ~ ~c Prepared for: City of Anaheim Prepared by: VISTA Community Planners February 2005 ,statement ofFindings ofFact TABI.~ ®~' C®1VTEN'I'S Section Paee ].0 Introduction and Summary of Proposed Project Actions ............................. 2.0 Statutory Background for Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ..................................................................... ........................... 2 3.0 Environmental Review Process ............................................................... ........................... 4 4.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................... ........................... 5 5.0 Draft EIR Format ..................................................................................... ........................... 5 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 ................................................ ........................... 8 7.0 Significant Effects, Mitigation Measures and Findings ......................... ........................... 8 8.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives .............................................. ......................... 56 9.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................ ......................... 86 10.0 Independent Review and Analysis ......................................................... ......................... 87 Archstone Gateway Project E/R No. 328 Page 1-t Statement off'mdings ofk'act THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIRES THAT A NUMBER OF FINDINGS BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH CERTIFICATION OF AN THE ARCHSTONE GATEWAY PROJECT EIR NO. 328 IS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. THE DOCUMENT WILL BE REVISED AS APPROPRIATE TO REFLECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS PROJECT REFINEMENTS AND THE FINAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 1.0 INTROI2UC'I'ION ANI) SUMMARY OF PROPOSEI9 PROTECT ACTIONS This document presents findings that must be made by the City of Anaheim prior to determining whether to approve the proposed Archstone Gateway Project (project) and certify EIR No. 328 pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency (City of Anaheim) is required to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The City of Anaheim (City) may find that: o Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially -essen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIIt/Final EIR; ® Such changes or alterations aze within the purview and jurisdictions of another agency and have been adopted, or can and should be adopted, by that agency; or e Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIIi/Final EIR. Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, including evidence from the Draft EII2, Final EIR, mitigation monitoring program (MMP), and the project's associated staff report. At the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIlt was issued for the project on February 25, 2003, the portion of the project site in the City of Anaheim was proposed to be implemented through amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.50), and the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan to provide for residential uses and zoning standards for the project site. Since the release of the NOP, the City processed a comprehensive citywide update to the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code), that were approved by the City Council on May 25, 2004, and are now effective. This replaced and superseded the SE Overlay Zone and the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. These changes now provide for residential uses to be located on the project site. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-I .Statement of~'isrdings of Fact Therefore, the proposed project applications have been modified to request the following approvals from the City of Anaheim: Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Amendment No. I) to provide for the Gateway District to have two sub-.areas (Sub Area A consisting of 41.56 acres and Sub Area B consisting of 8.44 acres). Amendment to Title 18 "Zoning", to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to establish zoning and development standazds for the Gateway District, Sub Area B and to provide for the development of amultiple-family residential development in Sub Area B subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit to allow a multiple-family residential development (the Archstone Gateway Project) in the Gateway District, Sub Area B consisting of 352 apartment units with on-site tenant business and leisure amenities hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Project" (the proposed 20:8-acre project site straddles the City limits of Anaheim and Orange with 352 units in the City of Anaheim, in the Gateway District, Sub Area B and 532 units in the City of Orange for a total of 884 units). 2.0 STATUTORX DACI{GROUND FOR STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA {Pub Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically,regazding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which ah EIR has been completed which identifies one or more .significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings aze: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 page ]_Z ,Statement of~'indings ot'F'aet (c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of .approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines .Section 1537Q including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which aze identified in the final E1R but aze not at least substantially mitigated, the. agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. It should be noted that the Draft E)R identified significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated below a level of significance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the decision-makers to approve the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided herein as Section 9.0 to this Statement of Findings of Fact. Having received, reviewed and considered the Final EIR for the Archstone Gateway Project, State Clearinghouse Nos.. 2003021]27 and 2003021129 (Final EIR), as well as all other Archstone Gateway Project 61R No. 318 Page 1-3 ,~tatemerrt o~'~'indings of~'act information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings contained in Sections 7 and 8 are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set _ forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the project. 3.0 ENVIR®NIVIEN'I'AL REVIEW I'R®CESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Anaheim CEQA guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has included the following. • The City completed an Initial Study which concluded that an EIR should be prepared. The Notice of Prepazation (NOP) and the Initial Study was distributed via certified mail fora 30- day public review period from February 25, 2003 to March 25, 2003. Section 1.0 of the EIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the EIR through the Initial Study and NOP process. During this review period, comments and input were solicited from agencies and other interested parties which would potentially affect or be affected by the proposed project or that may have an interest in the project. The NOP and Initial Study, the distribution list, and the written comments received during the review period for the NOP aze contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City considered the information in the NOP and Initial Study, along with all comments made in the response to the NOP, in preparing the Draft EIR. • A joint public scoping meeting was held on March 6, 2003, by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange to discuss the characteristics of the proposed project, the status of the project proposal, and the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft ElR based on the conclusion of the Initial Study distributed by each City. A Notice of Public Scoping Meeting was mailed on February 27, 2003 to public agencies, identified interested parties, and adjacent property owners and residents and advertised in an azea newspaper prior to the meeting. The Notice of Public Scoping Meeting described the proposed project and indicated locations where the NOPs and Initial Studies were available for public review. The Notice of Public Scoping Meeting, the sign-in list, and comment cazd from the scoping meeting aze provided in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the Orange County Register on October 6, 2004. This legal notice announced the release of the Draft E1R, described the proposed project, identified where the Draft EIR was available for review, and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIlt. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review on the City's website (www.anaheim.net/citydepartments/planning), at the City of Anaheim Planning Department (200 S. Anaheim Boulevazd, Anaheim, CA), Anaheim Main Library (500 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA), Sunkist Branch (901 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA), the City of Orange Community Development Department and Gity Clerk (300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange), Orange Public Library (101 N. Center Street, Orange, CA), Chazles P. Taft Branch Library (740 E. Taft Avenue, Orange, CA), and EI Modena Branch Library (380 S. Hewes Street, Orange, CA). In addition, the City distributed the Draft EIR to potential responsible and trustee agencies, affected public agencies, and other interested parties. The NOA was also mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site and the NOA was posted at the Office of the Clerk of Orange County. The City of Anaheim received eight letters and the City of Orange received six letters commenting on the Draft EIR, for a total of fourteen comment letters received. ~irchstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-4 Statement ofl+'indinQ.s ofFact The City prepared a Draft EIR consisting of three volumes. Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR. Volume II contains Technical Appendices, including: the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, the distribution list, written comments received during the public review period for the NOP, and the Notice of Scoping Meeting; Air Quality Assessment and Odors Study; Tree Inventory; Geotechnical Assessment; and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Volume BI contains: Hydrology Assessment and Water Quality Assessment; Noise Assessment and Vibration Assessment; Public Services Questionnaires; Traffic Study; Utilities and Service Systems Questionnaires; Sewer Capacity Study; Electrical Load Study; and Water Supply Assessment. o The City prepared a Final EIR, including Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIl2/Response to Comments contains the following: a summary of the public participation process; written comments on the Drafr EIR; and responses to those comments. The Final EIIt/Response to Comments was released fora 10-day public review period prior to the Planning Commission considering the project. e Public hearings on the proposed project. 4.0 PROJECT SUMiVIARY The project site is located on the east side of State College Boulevard, north of Interstate 5 (I-5), and south of Orangewood Avenue within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, in north-central Orange County. The boundaries of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange bisect the project site east to west with approximately 8.44 acres within the City of Anaheim (within an azea of the CiTy known as "The Platinum Triangle") and approximately 12.37 acres within the City of Orange. The project site .addresses aze 2150 State College Boulevard, Anaheim and 291 State College Boulevard, Orange. The project site has been graded, with the northern portion of the project site previously developed as a drive-in movie theater and a paved surface parking area. The southern portion of the project site has been utilized as an unpaved surface parking area. Local access to the project site is provided directly from State College Boulevard and from Orangewood Avenue via an approximately 50-foot wide access way. The project applicant, Archstone Communities, is proposing the development of an 884-unit multi-family residential community on a 20:81-acre project site. The development program for the proposed project provides for two four-story on-grade apartment buildings surrounding integrated four-story pazking structures; and, one three to four-story apartment building with the first floor serving as a screened pazking gazage. The residential buildings would have a maximum building height of 54 feet. The proposed apartment buildings would provide 884 units (352 units in the City of Anaheim and 532 units in the CiTy of Orange) with 400 one-bedroom units ranging from approximately 720 to 750 square feet and 484 two-bedroom units ranging from approximately 1,050 to 1,125 square feet. The proposed project would include on-site amenities and services consisting o£ a primary clubhouse with management and leasing offices; a fitness center with workout facilities; a business center with computer stations, copier, fax, printers, and conference tables; and a sports center with entertainment facilities; a secondary clubhouse with a fitness center and business center; three pool areas and spas; a sports court; and extensive landscaping and pedestrian walkways throughout the development. The proposed project would be served by three gated vehicle entries. The primary entrance would be from State College Boulevard along the project's eastern boundary. Secondary access points would be provided from State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-5 Statement of~'indings ofFact The project applicant is requesting approval of the following discretionary approvals and/or permits from the City: o Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Amendment No. 1) to provide for the, Gateway District to have two sub-azeas (Sub Area A consisting of 41.56 acres and Sub Area B consisting of 8.44 acres). m Amendment to Title 18 "Zoning", to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to establish zoning and development standards for the Gateway District, Sub Area B .and to provide for the development of amultiple-family residential development in Sub Area B subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit. e Conditional Use Permit (to allow amultiple-family residential development on the project site in the Gateway District Sub-Area B); o Grading Permit; and, Demolition Permit 5.0 IDRAFT FIR F®RMAT The Drag EIlt summazizes the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts aze to be mitigated, and discusses vazious alternatives to the proposed project which were developed in an effort to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR is divided into the following 13 sections: Section 1.0, Executive Summary ® Section 2.0, Project Description; ® Section 3.0, Environmental Conditions, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance Afrer Mitigation; o Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts; ® Section 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project; a Section 6.0, The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity; ® Section 7.0, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented; o Section 8.0, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Actions; ® Section 9.Q Organizations and Persons Consulted; Section 10.0, Bibliography; o Section11.0, Report Preparation Personnel; ® Section 12.0, Glossary; and o Section13.0, Abbreviations. Archstane Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page I-6 Statement of~'indings of~'act Section 1.0, Executive Summary, provides an overview of the proposed project, an overview of the planning context, the purpose and scope of the EIR, an overview of the environmental review process, .alternatives to the proposed project, and a table summarizing the environmental impacts for each environmental issue analyzed, applicable mitigation measures, .and level of significance anticipated after the mitigation measures would be applied. " ' Section 2.Q, Project Description, describes the project location, project objectives, methodology for the project analysis, project components, and the intended uses of the Draft E1R including the discretionary approvals/actions required prior to implementation of the proposed project. Section 3.0, Environmental Conditions, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation, evaluates the impacts associated with the approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project. The analysis of each environmental issue is organized into four subsections. The Environmental Conditions subsection describes the physical conditions which exist before the implementation of the proposed project and/or which may influence or affect the environmental issue being analyzed. The Thresholds of Significance subsection identifies the criteria by which the physical changes to the existing environmental conditions are reviewed in order to determine the significance of an impact. The Environmental Impacts subsection describes the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions which may occur if the proposed project is implemented. The significance of the impacts as a result of the potential environmental changes are based on the defined criteria in the Thresholds of Significance subsection. The Mitigation Measures subsection identifies the standard regulatory requirements (refered to as SRRs) and mitigation measures (referred to as MMs) recommended for incorporation into the proposed project in order to: avoid an impact or minimize an impact. The Level of Significance After Mitigation subsection summarizes the conclusions of the analysis in the Environmental Impacts subsection, including the significance of the environmental impacts after the incorporation of mitigation measures; In addition, the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are identified where there is no feasible mitigation or where the recommended mitigation is not expected to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts, provides an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with the environmental impacts of other closely related, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (referred to as related projects). This section analyzes each environmental issue in terns of cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and other related projects for the Years 2010 and 2025. Section 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, provides an analysis of the following alternatives to the proposed project: Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development Alternative; Altemative 2 - No Project/Development Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations - Industrial and Office Altemative; Alternative 3 -Office Development Alternative; Altemative 4 - Mixed-Use Alternative; and Alternative 5 -Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative. Section 6.Q, The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity, provides an analysis of the relationship between the shprt-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, including the environmental effects of the proposed project that reduce the range of beneficial uses or results in long-term risks to health and safety. Section 7.0, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented, evaluates the significant irreversible environmental effects that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-7 Statement ofFindings ofFact Section 8.0, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Actions, evaluates the potential environmental consequences of the foreseeable growth and development of the surrounding azea that could be induced by the implementation of the proposed project. Section 9.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted, summarizes the organizations and key persons contacted during the preparation of the Draft EIIt. Section10.0, Bibliography, summarizes the resource material used during the preparation of the Draft EIR. Section 11:0, Report Preparation Personnel, summarizes the key report preparation personnel for the preparation of the Draft EIR and supporting technical documentation. Section 12.0, Glossary, serves as a reference to the reader in defining terms used. in the Draft EIR. Section13.0, Abbreviations, serves as a reference to the reader in identifying abbreviations used in the Draft EIR. 6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 126 Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 (MMP) will need to be adopted by the City pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Public Resources Code, § 21081.6). The MMP will be used to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMP is fully described and includes the complete list of measures to be implemented and is contained in a separate document. 7.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASiJRES, AND FINDINGS The Draft E1R identified ten environmental categories that may result in significant or potentially significant environmental impacts. With the exception of one of these environmental categories, air quality, these potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. Although the significant air quality impacts (short-teen air quality impacts during demolition and grading activities) are reduced to the extent feasible through compliance with standazd regulatory requirements and the incorporation of a mitigation measure, these impacts can not be reduced to a less than significant level. This section presents in greater detail the City's Findings with respect to the significant and potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Discussion includes project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts for each impact category. This evidence is drawn from the Draft EIR, the Final E]RlResponse to Comments on the Draft EIR, and other evidence presented to the City, including other information in the administrative record, as detailed in Section 4.0 to'this Statement of Findings of Fact. Archstone Gatewa7, Project ElR No. 328 page l-8 Statement ofFindings ofFact 7.1 LAND USE -RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific lnrpacts City of Anaheim • The proposed project is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan Mixed Use land use designation for the project site. In addition, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan. • With approval of the requested Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to a conflict with the Plan's allowed land use for the project site. In addition, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the goals of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. • With approval of the requested amendment to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, finalization of zoning, and Conditional Use Permit the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the City of Anaheim zoning designations for the project site. City of Orange • With approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the City of Orange General Plan land use designation for the project site. In addition, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the goals and policies of the City of Orange General Plan. • With approval of the requested zone change and approval of the Specific Plan, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the City of Orange zoning designation for the project site. • The development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the goals and objectives of the City of Orange Bikeways Master Plan. • The development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the intent of the Uptown Orange Land Use and Economic Development Strategy City of Anaheim and City of Orange • With implementation of mitigation measures, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the applicable policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). In addition, with incorporation of mitigation measures, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to conflict with the applicable policies of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • With the incorporation of mitigation measures provided for potential impacts to public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-9 Statement ofia'indings ofFact result in a significant cumulative impact related to inconsistencies with land use-related plans and policies. Mitigation Measurest SRR 3.11.3-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay statutory school fees pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 and proof of compliance shall be provided to the respective City. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) SRR 3.11.4-I Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a Pazk Facilities Fee of $7,055.74 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Park Facilities Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.11.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay pazk in-lieu fees consistent with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 in accordance with the Development Impact Fees of the City's Master Fee Schedule. The fees shall be collected by the Chief Building Official or designee, and be based on the residential category in effect at the time in which the fees aze paid. (City of Orange) SRR 3.11.5-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a Library Facilities Fee of $144.39 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Library Facilities Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.11.5-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay Library Facilities Development Impact Fees consistent with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.50. The fees shall be collected by the Chief Building Official, or their designees, and be based upon the residential category in effect at the time in which the fees are paid. (City of Orange) SRR 3.12-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees consistent with the City of Anaheim Resolution No. 93R-148 regarding Transportation Impact Fee and Improvement Fee requirements. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a supplemental Arterial Highway Beautification/Aesthetic Impact Fee of $12,500 per gross acre. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Arterial Highway Beautification/Aesthetic Impact Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a supplemental Traffic Fee of $871 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation Archstone Galeway Project EIE No. 328 Page 1-10 statement oi'1Findings o1'i•'act measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Traffic Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first _. building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the payment of fees consistent with the City of Orange transportation fee requirements for the proposed project. The City of Orange Traffic Engineer in coordination with the Chief Building Official, or their designees, shall be responsible for verification of compliance with this requirement. (City of Orange) MM 3.12-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees for the proposed project's proportional shaze (calculated on an ADT basis to be six percent) of the following improvement to the intersection of Anaheim Way/ Orangewood Avenue: add second westbound right-tum lane. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.12-2 Prior to the issuance of the First building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees for the proposed project's proportional share (calculated on an ADT basis to be four percent) of the following improvement to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue: restripe the third southbound through lane as a shared left-turn/through lane. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.12-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for a residential unit, the property owner/developer shall prepare plans and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and the project's northern entrance. Said Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division. Design may include modifications to the existing driveway serving the industrial site on the north side of Orangewood Avenue across from the project entry. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13..1-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the primary main and fire protection service fees to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.1-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Stadium Business Center Area water facilities assessment fees and/or advances to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department in accordance with Rule 15D of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. As Rule 15D only has a calculated rate for the conversion from industrial to office/commercial, the rate will be negotiated based on the ratio of water demands for amulti-family use versus anoffice/commercial use. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.1-3 Prior to the approval of landscape plans or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit landscape plans to the City of Anaheim Planning Department in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Said plans shall use efficient irrigation systems including low-flow sprinkler heads, drip irrigation, and automatic systems which use moisture sensors and automatic rain shut-off devices and shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections. (City of Anaheim) Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-1 Statement ofFindings ofFaet MM 3.73.1-1 Prior to the first submittal of the water improvement plans for the proposed project and issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall__ .submit a water system Master Plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Divisipn and the City of Orange City Engineer, or designee. The Master Plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the proposed project's water demands and fire flow requirements without reducing existing service levels or impacting any existing water supply and conveyance facilities. If the Master Plan concludes that additional off-site improvements will be required to mitigate any impacts, such improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.13.1-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit construction plans to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department for review and approval that includes piping on-site with project water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation., if and when it becomes available from the County Sanitation District of Orange County. Said piping shall be installed prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.5-1 Prior to issuance of the First building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide easements and pay fees in accordance with the City of Anaheim Electric Rates, Rules, and Regulations for installation of backbone cables, switches, and related equipment to provide electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities to and within the development site. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.5-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit development plans for that portion of the project within the City of Anaheim to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department for review and approval. Said plans shall be designed in accordance with the City of Anaheim Electric Rates, Rules, .and Regulations and shall provide for conduits and substructures (including necessary ducts, manholes, vaults and service lateral ducts). All electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities shall be underground. If the Public Utilities Department determines that facilities (street lighting, electrical and telecommunication) need to be relocated along the project boundaries, the property owner/developer shall be required to provide new easements and pay for relocations. If the addition of new streetlights are required to meet roadway lighting standards, the property owner/developer shall install new street lights, per City of Anaheim design, and at no cost to the City of Anaheim prior to the first final building and zoning inspections. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.5-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit development plans for the City of Orange portion of the proposed project and shall be conditioned to require that all service and facilities will be built in accordance with Southern California Edison (SCE) policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission and other utility companies. All electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities shall be underground. (City of Anaheim) Archstone Gateway Project EIR Na. 328 page ]_]2 Statement ofia'indings ot'ia'act SRR 3.13.5-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit building construction plans to the City of Anaheim and City of Orange for review and approval. Said Plans shall comply with the Energy Conservation .Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) SRR 3.13.5-5 Prior to the issuance of the ftrst building permit for each residential building, the property owner/developer shall pay an Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee of $11.42 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Electric Utilities Undergrounding Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) With Mitigation the Effects are Fouud to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. ( ) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIIt (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Land Use -Related Plans and Policies is included in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Oranee Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and/or incorporation of mitigation measures, the development of the proposed project would not have significant environmental impacts that would result in effects on the health and general welfare of persons living or working on the project site or in the project vicinity. In addition, upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of recommended mitigation measures, the long-term operation of the proposed residential development would not result in physical effects on the adjacent land uses such that it would lead to the physical degradation of their properties. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to land use compatibility. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-13 Statement o9'Findings ofF'act Crenudative Lnpacts Ciiy of Anaheim and City of Oranee - - -- ® The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to land use compatibility. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.3-1 Prior to the approval of a grading plan for issuance of grading permits or the issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit the project design (azchitecture, colors and materials, and landscape plan) to the City of Anaheim Planning Commission for review and approval. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall receive approval of the final project design (architecture, colors and materials, and landscape plan) from the City of Orange Design Review Committee. (City of Orange) SRR 3.3-3 The lighting design for the proposed project shall be consistent with the City of Orange Municipal Code Ordinance No. 17.12.030 which requires that lighting on the project site be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded such that light and glaze would not result in direct illumination on the sunrounding properties or roadways. Prior to issuance of building permits, the final lighting design, including a photometric study, shall be submitted to the City of Orange Police Department for review and approval. (City of Orange) MM 3.3-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit the final lighting design, including a photometric study, to the City of Anaheim Planning Deparhnent and Police Department and City of Orange Planning Division and Police Department for review and approval The lighting design shall provide for lighting that is directed, controlled, screened, and/or shaded such that light and glare would not result in direct illumination on the surrounding properties or roadways. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.4-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit detailed procedures for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan that defines the timing and process for the regulaz cleaning and sanitization of the trash chutes .and trash enclosures. These procedures shall be submitted in written form for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department .and the City of Orange, Community Development Director, or designee. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the primary clubhouse and Building C, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that noise control barriers, as indicated in Figures 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 of the Draft EIR, have been incorporated into the project at the outdoor useable areas for the primary clubhouse and Building C to achieve the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. Figure 3.9-12 of the Draft EIR provides a typical elevation of the noise control barriers for the affected balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 3?8 Page 1-14 .statement of~'mdings of~'act MM 3.9-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each of the buildings identified in this mitigation measure, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that noise control barriers, as indicated in Figures 3.9-3, 3.9-5, 3.9-6, and 3.9-7 of the Draft EIR, have been incorporated into the project at the balconies of apartment units located adjacent to State College Boulevard, the I-5 Freeway; the industrial land uses to the north and northeast of the project site, and the commercial land use to the north of the project site to achieve the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. Figure 3:9-12 of the Draft EIR provides a typical elevation of the noise control barriers for the affected balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each of the buildings identified in this mitigation measure, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that "windows closed" conditions necessitating the provision of mechanical ventilation systems and upgaded windows (STC = 26 through 28), as indicated in Figures 3.9-3, 3.9-8, 3.9-9, 3.9-10, and 3.9-11 of the Draft EIIZ, have been incorporated into the project for the primary clubhouse and the apartment units located adjacent to State College Boulevard, the I-5 Freeway, the industrial land uses to the north and northeast of the project site, the commercial land use to the north of the project site, and the on-site moving plazas to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standazd. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and the City of Orange Community Development Director, or designee, for review and approval. The Acoustical Analysis Report shall describe the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the interior noise standards of the Cities. Additionally, the analysis shall provide recommendations to reduce patio noise to no more than 70 dBA CNEL for any balcony with a depth of six feet or more For a receptor located at a height of 5 feet above the balcony's floor. This latter standard may be met using glass. In addition, the Acoustical Analysis Report shall contain satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports have been incorporated into the design of the project. No site occupancy shall occur until subsequent noise measurements show that the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standazd has been met on the balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-6 Prior to the First final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for conducting field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations to verify interior and exterior compliance with Sound Transmission Class (STC) and Impact Insulation Class (IIC) design standards and noise standazds of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. The results of this testing shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and the City of Orange Community Development Director, or designee. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the driving surface of the parking Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-15 ..5"tatement ofFmdings ofl+'ast structures shall be constructed of and/or treated with materials that would reduce tire-related noise to the maximum extent possible. The use of the construction __, materials shall be indicated on the construction plans submitted to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each apartment building, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the air conditioning compressors for the apartment units shall be placed on isolators to reduce vibration and noise. The use of the isolators on the air conditioning compressors shall be indicated on the construction plans submitted to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.12-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees for the proposed project's proportional share (calculated on an ADT basis to be four percent) of the following improvement to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue: resttipe the third southbound through lane as a shared left-turn/through lane. (City of Anaheim) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIIUEA (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Land Use Compatibility aze included in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR prepazed for the project. 7.3 AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Oranee The development of the proposed project would substantially alter the visual quality of the project site with the conversion of the former drive-in theater site .and surface pazking azea to a high density multi-family residential community with on-site amenities, enhanced landscaping, and fence/wall improvements. Although the views and, therefore, the visual quality of the project site would be substantially altered from the existing conditions, the Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-16 Statement ofFindings of Fact proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the project site or the surrounding vicinity and would, in some instances, improve the visual chazacteristics of the project site with the addition of a residential development with enhanced landscaping, decorative fences/walls, and an overall architectural theme. In addition, the proposed project would not alter the views of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, including the "Big A" sign, from the I-5 Freeway and off-ramp. • With the completion of the preliminary design review processes for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its surroundings. • Although the proposed project would provide new sources of night lighting and glare, the amount of lighting and glare would be consistent with the urbanized setting in which the project site is located. The lighting on the project site would occur consistent with the City of Orange building code requirements that lighting on the project site be controlled such that light and glaze would not result in direct illumination on the surrounding properties or adjacent roadways. However, as the detailed lighting plan for the proposed project is not available at this stage in the design process, a detailed photometric study cannot be prepared. Therefore, it must be .assumed that the development of the proposed project has the potential to result in a significant impact due to the creation of new sources of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirement of the City of Orange and the incorporation of mitigation, this potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level • The proposed project would result in the addition of shade and shadows to the project site and the adjacent properties, including the commercial land use (De] Taco drive-thru restaurant) to the north, the industrial land uses to the north and northeast, and the adjacent mobile home pazk (Park Royale Mobile Village) to the east of the project site. However, as indicated in the shade and shadow analysis, the on-site and off-site active areas do not experience shade or shadow for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. In addition, the proposed project would not result in substantial shade or shadow projected on light sensitive land uses that would require extensive exposure to natural sunlight in order to function. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the creation of substantial shade or shadow. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of a mitigation measure, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics due to changes in visual aesthetics, light/glaze, and shade/shadow. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.3-1 Prior to the approval of a grading plan for issuance of grading permits or the issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit the project design (architecture, colors and materials, and landscape plan) to the City of Anaheim Planning Commission for review and approval. (City of Anaheim) Archstane Gateway Froject EIR No. 328 Page /-/7 Statement of~'indrngs ofFaet SRR 3.3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall receive .approval of the final project design (architecture, colors and materials,._ and landscape plan) from the City of Orange Design Review Committee. (City of Orange) SRR 3.3-3 The lighting design for the proposed project shall be consistent with the City of Orange Municipal Code Ordinance No. 17.12.030 which requires that lighting on the project site be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded such that light and glare would not result in direct illumination on the surrounding properties or roadways. Prior to issuance of building permits, the final lighting design, including a photometric study, shall be submitted to the City of Orange Police Department for review and approval. (City of Orange) MM 3.3-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit the final lighting design, including a photometric study, to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and Police Department and City of Orange Planning Division and Police Department for review and approval. The lighting design shall provide for lighting that is directed, controlled, screened, .and/or shaded such that light and glare would not result in direct illumination on the surrounding properties or roadways. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: I. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a](1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]J Reference: The discussion of setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Aesthetics aze included in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR prepazed for the project. 7.4 AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® The PMro emissions associated with the demolition activities required for the proposed project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds. These emissions would include a 50 percent reduction in PM~o emissions from watering as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. Therefore, the demolition Arclrstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-18 Statement ofFendings ofFaet activities required for the proposed project would result in a short-term significant impact to air quality due to PM~o emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 .and incorporation of mitigation would reduce this impact to the extent feasible. However, this impact remains a significant unavoidable adverse impact. The NOx and PMio emissions associated with the grading activities for the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The primary sources of the NOx emissions would be the trucks importing the dirt and the construction equipment used at the project site. The ptimary source of the PM~o emissions would be the disturbance of the project site and the unloading of trucks. The grading activities for the proposed project would result in a short-term significant impact to air quality due to NOx and PM~o emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and incorporation of mitigation would reduce this impact to the extent feasible. However, this impact remains a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Cumulative Inepacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to short-term construction activities. Although the proposed project's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be reduced to the extent feasible through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and incorporation of mitigation measures, this remains a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.4-1 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall secure all necessary permits from SCAQMD, including a fugitive dust emissions control plan pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Evidence of receipt of permit shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works and the City of Orange, Department of Public Works. All grading and construction activities shall be conducted consistent with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403 including, but. not limited to, the following measures to achieve reductions in construction-related PM~o emissions: Land Clearing/Earth-Moving • Non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied according to manufactures' specifications and/or vegetation shall be planted on all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more and not scheduled for additional construction activities within 12 months, to the extent feasible).. • Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with 5 percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. o All other active sites shall be watered at teast twice daily, • All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if dust is being transported to off- site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. Archstone Gatewa~~ Project EIR Na. 3?8 Page 1-19 statement ofFrntlings of`~'act • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off-site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e.,._. minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). • A construction relations officer shall be established by the Project Applicant to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activities, including resolution of issues related to fugitive dust generation. Paved Roads • Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. • Construction equipment shall be inspected prior to leaving the project site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Uttpaved Roads • Water or non-toxic sail stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 mph. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.4-I Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works and the City of Orange, Department of Public Works that the following measures to achieve reductions in construction-related equipment emissions have been included in the grading plan and improvement plan specifications for implementation by contractors: • Use low emission mobile construction equipmeut. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources (i:e., power poles) when feasible. • Configure construction pazking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets aze kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: (x) Significant ()Not Significant Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page I-20 .Statement ofFinriings ofFact Finding: I. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project; which - --- avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][]].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations .aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public .agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations; including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange The pollutant emissions, CO, ROG, NOx, and SOx, would be well within the SCAQMD significance thresholds during demolition activities. Therefore, the demolition activities required for the proposed project would not result in a short-term significant impact related to these emissions. • The pollutant emissions, CO, ROG, and SOx, would be well within the SCAQMD significance thresholds during grading activities. Therefore, the grading activities required for the proposed project would not result in a short-term significant impact related to these emissions. • Although the proposed project would contribute to the future CO emissions, for the Year 2025 conditions, the increase would not be detectable. In addition, the future CO levels with the proposed project would comply with the 1-hour and 8-hour CO State and Federal standards: Therefore, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would not be significantly affected by localized mobile source emissions. Based on this, the proposed project would not result in a long-term significant impact to local air quality from CO emissions due to vehicle traffic during on-going operations. The total emissions during the on-going project operations aze below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a long-term significant impact to regional air quality during on-going operations. Incorporation of mitigation, providing alternative fuel vehicle stations, would further reduce vehicle-related emissions. The development of the proposed project would result in less emissions than the land uses currently allowed on the project site by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange General Plans and, therefore, the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumptions. In addition, the on-going project operations would not result in long-term emissions that exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds and the proposed project would not result in a long-term significant impact to regional air quality. Therefore, the emissions from the proposed project would not result in inconsistencies with the AQMP assumptions. • The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact related to odors generated by the on-site solid waste disposal systems. Incorporation of mitigation, providing requirements for the on-going operation .and maintenance of the on- site solid waste systems, would ensure that the potential for odors does not occur. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-21 Statement of~'rndings ofl%act • The vehicle emissions within the on-site parking structures are not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to odors affecting the proposed on-site residential development.. • The off-site activities at the industrial land uses located to the north and northeast of the project site are not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to odors affecting the. proposed on-site residential development. • The off-site vehicle traffic on the I-5 Freeway located to the south of the project site is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to odors affecting the proposed on-site residential development. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • In the Year 2010 .and the Year 2025, the traffic-related emissions from the proposed project and the related projects would not result in a long-term significant cumulative impact to local air quality from CO emissions. • The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to on-going operations. However, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.4-I Prior to the appi-oval of the first .grading plan or issuance of the first demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the City of Anaheim, Departrnent of Public Works and the City of Orange, Depaztment of Public Works that the following measures to achieve reductions in construction-related equipment emissions have been included in the grading plan and improvement plan specifications for implementation by contractors: • Use low emission mobile construction equipment. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources (i.e, power poles) when feasible. • Configure construction pazking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite pazking areas with a shuttle service). (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the First building permit, as deemed appropriate, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-22 5'tateinent of Findings of Fact alternative fuel vehicle stations within the development. These features shall be incorporated into the construction drawings for verification by the City of Anaheim Planning Department, or designee, and the City of Orange, Community Development Director, or designee. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.4-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit detailed procedures for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan that defines the timing and process for the regular cleaning and sanitization of the trash chutes and trash enclosures. These procedures shall be submitted in written form for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department and the City of Orange, Community Development Director, or designee. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adapted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. O Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Air Quality aze included in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR prepared for the Project. 7.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Orange The development of the proposed project would result in the removal of IS trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange. This would be considered a significant impact. Prior to the issuance of a demolition or .grading permit (whichever comes first), the Project Applicant shall process a tree removal permit consistent with the requirements of the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. In addition, the landscape plan for the proposed project would provide for the rep]acement of the removed trees at ratios acceptable to the City of Orange Community Services Department. Upon compliance with the requirements of the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance and implementation of mitigation, the impact to biological resources due to the removal, replacement, or transplant of trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange would be reduced to a less than significant level. Archstane Gateway Project EIR Na. 328 Page 1-23 Statement ofFindings of~'act Cumulative Impacts City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact to biological resources related to the removal, replacement, or transplant of mature trees or other vegetation. Mitigatiou Measures: SRR 3,5-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit (whichever comes first) from the City of Orange, the property owner/developer shall process and receive approval of a tree removal permit from the City of Orange, Director of Community Services. The location of each tree approved for removal shall be shown on the demolition and/or grading plan submitted to the City of Orange for review and approval. (City of Orange) MM 3.5-I Prior to issuance of a grading permit from the City of Orange, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Orange for review and approval a landscape plan providing evidence of compliance with the tree replacement ratio as defined by the City of Orange Community Services Department. The tree replacement ratios shall consist of: 25 percent as 48-inch box specimens; 25 percent as 36-inch box specimens; and 50 percent as 24-inch box specimens. (City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Fouud to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1],) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. (a][2].) 3. ()Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. (a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Biological Resources are included in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange Archs[one Gateway Projec[ EIR No. 328 Page 1-24 .5'tatement ofFin~lmts ofFaet • Although seismic ground shaking at the project site could be considerable, the effects on the proposed project would be addressed through compliance with existing seismic-resistant design criteria in the City of Anaheim and City of Orange building and grading codes and the City of Orange General Plan Safety Element Goal I Implementation 1.1.1 which requires preparation of geologic studies for development proposals in areas containing known'or suspected geologic hazards. Upon compliance with the grading and building codes and the. City of Orange General Plan Safety Element Goal ]Implementation 1.1.1, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to ground shaking from a seismic event. • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the exposure of residents or structures to substantial adverse effects from expansive soils on the project site. • The development of the proposed project would have the potential to result in a significant impact due to the exposure of residents .and structures to substantial adverse effects from the compression of the upper 5 to 10 feet of soil and undocumented fill and alluvial materials on the project site. Compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the City of Orange General Plan Safety Element Goal 1 hnplementation 1.1.1 and the incorporation of mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the exposure of residents and structures to substantial adverse effects from liquefaction during a seismic event. • The development of the proposed project would have the potential to result in a significant impact due to lateral spreading. Compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of Anaheim .and Orange, the City of Orange General Plan Safety Element Goal 1 Implementation 1.1.1 and the incorporation of mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact to biological resources related to the removal, replacement, or transplant of mature trees or other vegetation. • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.6-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Geotechnical Evaluation for review and approval by the City of Anaheim, Public Works Department. All grading and project design shall comply with the grading and building codes of the City of Anaheim. (City of Anaheim) Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-25 ~'tatement of~'indings of~'act SRR 3.6-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Geotechnical _ Evaluation for review and approval by the City of Orange, Public Works Director, or designee. All grading and project design shall comply with the grading and building codes of the City of Orange. (City of Orange). MM 3.6-1 Prior to the approval of the first grading plans or issuance of the firsf grading or building permit, whichever comes first, from the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the property owner/developer shall incorporate into the goading and project design the recommendations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Gateway Project, Cities of Anaheim and Orange, County of Orange, California, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., June 9, 2003 for review and verification by the Public Works Director, or designee. The recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: e All fill materials and alluvial deposits up to 10 feet in depth, as they affect structural development, shall be removed from the project site and replaced by engineered fill in accordance with the grading code of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Where design vertical cut is less than 5 to 10 feet, the alluvial deposits shall be removed and replaced by engineered fill in accordance with the grading code of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Subsequent to ground prepazation on the project site, soil shall be placed in thin (approximately 6 inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent per ASTM D 1557-00 test method. ® Before any soil is imported to the projecfsite, the material shall be tested by a qualified geologist to verify that the expansive qualities of the fill material are very low and that no hazardous materials are present in the imported fill. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 4. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 5. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a] [2].) 6. ()Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference; The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Geology and Soils are included in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. Archstane Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-26 Statement ofFindings ofFact 7.7 HAZARDS Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to potential hazards as a result of any hazardous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or soil imports to the project site. • There are no existing hazardous conditions on the project site due to potential helicopter over flight activities. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the exposure of on-site residents to potential hazards associated with helicopter over flight or flight paths. The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Cumulative Impacts Gity of Anaheim and City of Orange • The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant impact related to hazards. Mitigation Measures: None With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding:. 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [aJ[3] J Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Hazards are included in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. Archs[one Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-27 ,Statement ofFmdings of~'act 7.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Effects: " " Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange o The development of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattem or the rate or amount of surface runoff in the northern drainage azea or result in the creation of an additional burden to the existing deficient Southwest Anaheim (E12) Channel. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities. ® The development of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, or the rate or amount of surface runoff in the southern drainage area, or result in the creation of any unanticipated surface runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing Caltrans stormwater drainage system. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities. ® During the short-term demolition, grading, and construction activities for the proposed project, there would be the potential for surface water runoff to carry pollutants and sediment into the existing on-site and off-site drainage facilities. If pollutants or sediments enter the drainage facilities on-site and adjacent to the project site, a significant storm could generate sufficient flows to carry those contaminants downstream towazd the Santa Ana River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The construction-related .activities for the proposed project would occur consistent with the erosion control standards and policies imposed by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange grading and building permit requirements. In addition, prior to any demolition, site clearing, or grading activities on the project site, the property ownerldeveloper would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boazd (RWQCB) indicating that the proposed project would be in compliance with the "conditions" of the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Activities General Permit, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Upon compliance with these Federal, State, and local standard regulatory requirements regazding the NPDES program, the short-term demolition, grading, and construction activities for the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to surface water quality. During the on-going maintenance and use of the proposed multi-family residential community, including the pazking structures, the on-site amenities, and landscape and hardscape azeas, there would be the potential for surface water runoff to carry urban pollutants into the existing and proposed on-site and existing off=site drainage facilities. If pollutants from the on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project enter the drainage facilities on-site and adjacent to the project site, a significant storm could generate sufficient flows to carry those contaminants downstream towazd the Santa Ana River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the property owner/developer would submit to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for consideration and approval. Upon compliance with the City of Anaheim and City of Orange standard regulatory requirements regarding the development and implementation of a long-term post-construction WQMP consistent with the requirements of the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the long-term operations and use of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to surface water quality. Archstone Gateway Project 6IR No. 328 Page 1-28 .Statement ofFindings ofFact Cunudative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange o The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant impact related to the existing storm drainage facilities. - ® Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tong-term and short-term water quality. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.8-1 Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Santa Ana RWQCB in compliance with the requirements of the Construction Activities General Permit pursuant to the NPDES regulations of the federal Clean Water Act. As a part of the filing process for the NOI, the property owner/developer shall submit a construction activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that has been reviewed and approved by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Directors of Public Works, or designees, The SWPPP shall: identify potential sources of sediment and pollutants during construction-related activities that could affect the quality of the stormwater discharge from the project site; define structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of sediment and pollutants into the surface runoff; and, provide a monitoring program to address implementation of and compliance with the defined BMFs. In addition to BMPs required by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the SWPPP shall include those requested by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) SRR 3.8-2 Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit to the County of Orange for consideration and approval, along-term post-construction Water Quality Management Plan-(WQMP) consistent with the requirements of the 2003 DAMP that has been reviewed and approved by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Directors of Public Works, or designees. The WQMP shall: 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 structural and ^on- structural 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 BMPs. In addition to BMPs required by the 2003 DAMP, the WQMP shall include those requested by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant ~Irchstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-29 Statement oi'~'mdings ofFaet Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which-- avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Fina] E1R (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Hydrology and Water Quality are included in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.9 NOISE Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange An increase in the ambient noise levels as a result of the "worst-case" construction activities for the proposed project would occur at the portion of the mobile home park adjacent to the eastern project boundary. However, the estimated construction-related noise levels would be temporary and noise generated by construction-related activities would be allowed for under Section 8.24.070 of the City of Orange Noise Ordinance and Section 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, upon compliance with the City of Orange Noise Ordinance and the Anaheim Municipal Code, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant short-term noise impact due to construction activities. Although no significant impact was identified, incorporation of mitigation would achieve additional reductions in construction-related noise levels. From an acoustical standpoint, the vehicular-related noise levels would be indiscernible when compazing the "with project" and "without project" scenazios for the short-range and long-range conditions. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to off-site exterior areas as a result of the addition of project-related vehicle trips to State College Boulevazd, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue or the other study azea roadways. • The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in an increase in noise levels at the adjacent mobile home park due to the reflection of noise from the I-5 Freeway and its ramps from the proposed residential buildings. No impact would occur. The development of the proposed project would have the potential to result in a significant impact at some of the apartment unit exterior living spaces, the outdoor usable areas for the primary clubhouse and Building C, the interior of the primary clubhouse, and some of the aparhnent unit interior living spaces due to traffic-related noise levels and potential noise generated by the .adjacent industrial and commercial land uses. Incorporation of mitigation, which requires noise control barriers, "closed window" conditions, and noise monitoring, would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Archstone Gatex~ay Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-30 ,StatementofFindings ofFaet The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to parking structure related .noise. Incorporation of mitigation, requiring _ __ treatment of the driving surface in the pazking structures to reduce tire-related noise, would further reduce noise levels. The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact to the proposed on-site apartment units or the existing off-site residential units at the mobile home park due to the operation of mechanical equipment.. Incorporation of mitigation, requiring the air conditioning compressors to be placed on isolators, would ensure that vibration and noise would be reduced. Upon compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70 and the City of Orange Noise Ordinance, the development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the use of the moving plazas. Although no significant impact was identified, incorporation of mitigation, requiring a "windows closed" condition, would ensure that the noise levels within the interior of the apartment units during the use of the moving plazas would not exceed the Cities of Anaheim and Orange interior residential noise standard of 45 dBA. In addition, incorporation of mitigation would ensure that the property management for the proposed residential development provide certain rules and regulations restricting the hours of use and assess penalties for excessive noise to minimize the effects from these facilities. Upon compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70 and the City of Orange Noise Ordinance, the development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the use of the recreational facilities. Although no significant impact was identified, incorporation of mitigation would ensure that the property management for the proposed residential development provide certain rules and regulations restricting the hours of use and assess penalties for excessive noise to minimize the effects from these recreational facilities. The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the exposure of on-site residents to excessive noise levels due to helicopter over flights in the project vicinity. Although no significant impact was identified, incorporation of mitigation, requiring a "windows closed" condition, would allow for noise reduction during over flight. In addition, incorporation of-mitigation, requiring tenant notification of potential over flight activity, would inform future residents of the potential for increases in noise levels. The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant short-term impact related to substantial vibration due to construction activities. The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant long-term impact related to substantial vibration during the on-going project operations. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a long-term significant cumulative impact due to traffic- related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general area surrounding the project site. However, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant. Archstone Gateway Project E/R No. 328 Page I-31 ,Statement ofFindings of~'act Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.9-1 Ongoing during construction of the project, construction activities shall be -- conducted in accordance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.70. Pursuant to this, all construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federa( holiday. (City of Anaheim) S12R 3.9-2 Construction activities for the proposed project shall be conducted in accordance with Title 8, Chapter 8.24, Section 8.24.070E of the City of Orange Municipal Code. Pursuant to this, all construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday. (City of Orange) MM 3.9-1 Prior to the approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition, grading, or building permit, a note shall be placed on the demolition, grading, and construction plans requiring contractors to comply with the following noise reduction measures. Said measures shall be implemented on-going during demolition, grading, and construction: The property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with these noise reduction measures. o All construction activities far the proposed project shall be prohibited between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal Holiday o All construction vehicles or equipment operated (fixed or mobile) shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. o All stationary construction equipment shall be placed as far away as feasible and situated so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the east, southeast, and west of the project site. o All long-term stock-piling and equipment staging areas shall be placed in a manner as to provide as much distance between construction-related noise sources and potentially noise sensitive receptors to the east, southeast, and west as feasible during all project site prepazation, grading, and construction activities. o All construction hauling shall be limited to those days and hours specified for on-site construction. o All construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to those days and hours specified for on-site construction. o The 8-foot high block wall aiong the eastern project boundary immediately adjacent to the mobile home pazk shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the aparhnent buildings to serve as a noise barrier for construction-related noise. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the primary clubhouse and Building C, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that noise control barriers, as indicated in Figures 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 of the Draft EIR, have been incorporated into the project at the outdoor useable areas for the primary clubhouse .and Building C to achieve the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standazd. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-32 5'tatement ofFindings ofFact Figure 3.9-12 of the Draft EIR provides a typical elevation of the noise control barriers for the affected balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each of the buildings identified in this mitigation measure, the property owner/developer shall provide. evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that noise control barriers, as indicated in Figures 3.9-3, 3.9-5, 3.9-6, and 3.9-7 of the Draft EIIt, have been incorporated into the project at the balconies of apartment units located adjacent to State College Boulevard, the I-5 Freeway, the industrial land uses to the north and northeast of the project site, and the commercial land use to the north of the project site to achieve the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. Figure 3.9-12 of the Draft EIR provides a typical elevation of the noise control barriers for the affected balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each of the buildings identified in this mitigation measure, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that "windows closed" conditions necessitating the provision of mechanical ventilation systems and upgraded windows (STC = 26 through 28), as indicated in Figures 3.9-3, 3.9-8, 3.9-9, 3.9-10, and 3.9-11 of the Drafr EIR, have been incorporated .into the project for the primary clubhouse and the apartment units located adjacent to State College Boulevard, the I-5 Freeway, the industrial land uses to the north and northeast of the project site, the commercial land use to the north of the project site, and the on-site moving plazas to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and the City of Orange Community Development Director, or designee, for review and approval. The Acoustical Analysis Report shall describe the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the interior noise standards of the Cities. Additionally, the analysis shall provide recommendations to reduce patio noise to no more than 70 dBA CNEL for any balcony with a depth of six feet or more for a receptor located at a height of 5 feet above the balcony's floor. This latter standazd may be met using glass. In addition, the Acoustical Analysis Report shall contain satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports have been incorporated into the design of the project. No site occupancy shall occur until subsequent noise measurements show that the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard has been met on the balconies. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-6 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for conducting field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations to verify interior and exterior compliance with Sound Transmission Class (STC) and Impact Insulation Class (IIC) design standards and noise standards of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. The results of this testing shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and the City of Orange Community Development Director, or designee. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) Archstone Gateway Project E!R No. 328 Page 1-33 .Statement ofd'}nd6n~s of Fact MM 3.9-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the driving surface of the parking structures shall be constructed of and/or treated with materials that would reduce tire-related noise to the maximum extent possible. The use of the construction materials shall be indicated on the construction plans submitted to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each apartment building, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the air conditioning compressors for the aparhnent units shall be placed on isolators to reduce vibration and noise. The use of the isolators on the air conditioning compressors shall be indicated on the construction plans submitted to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-9 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the property management for the proposed residential development has established rules and regulations restricting the hours of use and the assessment of penalties for excessive noise to minimize the effects from the moving plazas. These rules and regulations shall be provided to potential tenants far their review during the lease agreement process. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-10 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that the property management for the proposed residential. development has established rues and regulations restricting the hours of use and the assessment of penalties for excessive noise to minimize the effects from the recreational facilities. These rules and regulations shall be provided to potential tenants for their review during the lease agreement process. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.9-11 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Building Official, or designee, of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange that property management for the proposed project has prepared information on the potential for helicopter over flight for potential tenants for their review during the lease agreement process. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding: Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][3].) Archstone Gateway Project EIR Na. 3?8 Page 1-34 ,Statement ofFintiings ofFaet 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Noise are included in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Effects:. Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • The proposed project would not result in the addition of substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the OCCOG Subregion or the Cities of Anaheim and Orange which would exceed regional or local population projections. Tl7e proposed project provides fore the development of ahigh-quality residential development on an under developed infill site that has existing infrastructure and roadways. It is anticipated that the proposed project would address the existing and future projected housing needs of the surrounding communities. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to population growth or regional or local population projections. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to population growth. Mitigation Measures: None With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: I. OChanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. ()Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Archstone Gateway Project E!R No. 328 Page 1-35 .statement ofFindings ofFact Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Population and Housing are--- included in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.11 FUBLIC SERVICES -FIRE PREVENTION Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange o The construction-related activities for the proposed project would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact related to the provision of Fire protection and emergency medical services by the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange Fire Departments. Incorporation of mitigation, which requires a Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan, would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. o During the short-term construction-related activities for the proposed project, no significant impact would be anticipated regazding which fire department or fire station would respond within an adequate response time to the project site. City of Anaheim o Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirement for payment of a Fire Facilities Fee, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of fire protection services or emergency medical services due to an increase that exceeds the equipment and staffing capabilities of the City of Anaheim Fire Department. City of Orange Upon compliance with the standazd regulatory requirement for fees consistent with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 15.38, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of fire protection services or emergency medical services due to an increase that exceeds the equipment and staffing capabilities of the City of Orange Fire Department. City of Anaheim and City of Orange Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the Uniform Building Code as amended, the City of Anaheim Fire Code, and the City of Orange Fire Code, and the completion of the staff review and design review processes by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to non-compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements related to fire protection and emergency medical services. The development of the proposed project would have the potential to result in a significant impact related to access for fire protection .services and emergency medical services by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Fire Departments. Upon incorporation of mitigation which requires a Fire Access Plan for on-going project operations, mitigation which includes the provision of dual-keyed Knox Rapid Entry devices, and mitigation which requires an automatic fire sprinkler system(s), this potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Archstone Gatewa~~ Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-36 .Statement of~'indings of~'act Cunudative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.11.1-1 .Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a Fire Facilities Fee of $350 per each residential unit in the building. If, subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure, the City of Anaheim adopts a different Fire Facilities Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.11.1-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay all applicable Fire Facility Fees consistent with Chapter 15.38 of the Orange Municipal Code as required by the City of Orange Fire Department. (City of Orange) MM 3.11.1-1 Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Fire Department and the City of Orange Fire Department a Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan for review and approval. The Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan shall include the location of all existing fire hydrants, appazatus access routes and access points from the adjacent public streets, and the emergency access azeas provided to within 150 feet of all on-site construction activities. The specific format and. content of the Construction Phase Emergency Fire Access Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Fire Chiefs, or their designees. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.1-2 Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange Fire Chiefs, or their designees, an Emergency Fire Access Plan for the on-going project operations showing all proposed means of emergency access for both fire appazatus and emergency personnel into and azound the project. The Emergency Fire Access Plan shall indicate: the location of all existing and proposed fire hydrants for the development and adjacent azeas; the location and Type of signage provided to aid emergency personnel on the fire access roads and within the pazking structures; the residential structures; and, the recreation facilities. In addition, the Emergency Fire Access Plan shall show the heights of all vertical obstructions, including landscaping, over the fire access lanes, with no obstruction less than 14 feet in height. The specific format and content of the Emergency Fire Access Plan shall. be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Fire Departments, or their designees. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.1-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the building official or designee of the City of Anaheim Planning Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 318 Page 1-37 .Statement ofFindings of~'act Department, Building Division and the City of Orange Community Development Department, Building Division evidence that dual-keyed Knox Rapid Eniry devices will be provided at all lacked vehicular and pedestrian access gates. Knox device locations shall be coordinated with and approved by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Fire Departments. (City of Anaheim ahd City of Orange) MM 3.11.1-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Building Official or designee of the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Building Division and the City of Orange Community Development Deparhnent, Building Division, for review and approval, building construction plans indicating that the proposed project will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed and installed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standazd 13, The design of the automatic fire sprinkler system(s) shall be coordinated with and approved by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Fire Departments. All required fire sprinkler systems shall be installed and operational in each building prior to the first final building and zoning inspection For that building. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a]j3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Fire Prevention aze included in Section 3.11.1 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project, 7.12 PUBLIC SERVICES -POLICE SERVICES Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange a The construction-related activities for the proposed project would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact related to the provision of police protection services to the project site by the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange Police Departments due to temporary effects on access and circulation. Upon payment of property tax for the proposed project (a portion of which would provide revenue for police staffing in the Cities of Archstone Gateway Projec[ EIR No. 328 Page 1-38 .statement offindings of~'act Anaheim and Orange), compliance with the City of Orange Municipal Cade Chapter 3.13 requiring payment of Police Facility Development Fee, and incorporation of mitigation requiring payment of City of Anaheim Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fees and mitigation requiring a Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan, this potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The on-going operations of the proposed project would result in a long-term significant impact to the provision of police protection services due to a need for an increase in staff that exceeds the existing staffing capabilities of the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Police Departments. Upon payment of property tax for the proposed project (a portion of which would provide revenue for police staffing in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange), compliance with the City of Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.13 requiring payment of Police Facility Development Fee, and incorporation of mitigation requiring payment of City of Anaheim Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fees, this potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The development of the proposed project would have the potential to result in a significant impact related to access for police protection services by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Police Departments. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level With incorporation of the CPTED concepts into the project design, compliance with the requirements of the City of Orange Building Security Ordinance No. 7-79, and completion of the staff review and plan check processes by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the development of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to non-compliance with al] applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements related to police protection services. Cuneu[ative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.11.2-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the applicable City of Orange Police Facility Development Fee as established in the Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.13. (City of Orange) SRR 3.11.2-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit building construction plans to the City of Orange Police Department for review and approval that aze in compliance with the requirements of the City of Orange Building Security Ordinance No. 7-79 established in the Orange Municipal Code Chapter 15.52. (City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the anticipated amount of $31.62 per each residential unit in the building for the City of Anaheim Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fee which is anticipated to be adopted by the City; or if the fee has not been adopted at the time of issuance of the first building permit, the payment of an amount estimated by the City of Anaheim Police Department to be the Archstone Gatewa~~ Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-39 ,statement o#'Findings oi'Fact approximate fair share attributable to the project for police facilities. If an estimated amount has been paid by the property owner/developer, and upon.... subsequent adoption of a Police Facilities Capital Improvement Fee it is determined that the property owner/developer has paid an amount greater than the Fee payable, the excess estimate shall be refunded to the property owner/developer. If the Fee exceeds the amount of the estimate, the property owner/developer shall pay the difference to the City of Anaheim prior to the first final building and zoning inspection. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.11.2-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Police Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, or their designees, a Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan. The Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan shall include the location of all existing access points from the adjacent public streets and the on-site emergency access azeas provided to within 150 feet of all construction activities. The Construction Phase Emergency Access Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Police Departments. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-3 Prior to the approval of the first grading plans or issuance of the first grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Police Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, or their designees, an Emergency Access Plan for on-going project operations showing all proposed means of emergency access for both police and other emergency personnel into and azound the project. The Emergency Access Plan shall indicate: the location of all access points, the location and type of signage provided to aid police and other emergency personnel on the fire access roads and within the pazking structures, the residential structures, and the recreation facilities. The specific format and content of the Emergency Access Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Police Departments. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-4 On-going during the first five (5) yeazs from the first final building .and zoning inspection, the Police Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and City of Orange, or their designees, shall conduct a review every six months to assess the effectiveness of project access associated with the division of the project site into two jurisdictions. The property owner/developer shall provide appropriate changes, as determined by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Police Departments to address inadequacies identified within the timeframe designated by the Police Departments. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Police Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and Orange, or their designees, evidence for review and approval that the design of the proposed project provides cleaz distinctions in the jurisdictional boundaries. This shall include, but not be limited to the following: azchitectural features; paint or texture distinctions; signage; pavement mazkers; maps; etc. The approved design elements shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-6 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Police Chiefs of the City of Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-40 ,statement ofFindings ofFact Anaheim and Orange, or their designees, for review and approval finished detailed project maps to be supplied to dispatch and patrol officers. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-7 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Police Chiefs of the City of Anaheim and City of Orange, or their designees, and the Planning Departments for review and approval, evidence that the design of the proposed project includes the provision of an illuminated diagrammatic directory at the access points to the proposed project. This directory shall be installed and inspected by each City's crime prevention officer prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each phase of the project that includes an access point. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Police and Planning Departments, and the City of Orange Crime Prevention Officer for review and approval a photometric lighting plan. The approved lighting shall be operational prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-9 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection and annually (from the first final zoning and building inspection) during project operations, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim and City of Orange Crime Prevention Officer for review and approval, evidence that educational materials shall be distributed on a continuous basis to new residents outlining the City boundary line between the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the .appropriate procedures and specific phone numbers to use in the case of an event requiring police services. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.11.2-10 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection and annually (from the first final zoning and building inspection) during project operations, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim .and City of Orange Crime Prevention Officer for review and approval evidence that the residential development management for the proposed project, in coordination with the Police Departments, shall establish a Neighborhood Watch program for the residents to meet at least every six months. The program shall serve as a forum for the residents to identify safety issues to be addressed by the residential development management. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3..11.2-1 I Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, to be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building, the property owner/developer shall submit building construction plans to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Police Departments for review and approval. Said Plans shall incorporate the following security and police response features into its design: o Internal apartment numbering shall be distinct enough as to distinguish those dwelling units within the City of Anaheim from those within the City of Orange; ® Wiring for a CCTV (closed circuit television) shall be installed to cover all courtyards, recreational centers, pools and spa areas in addition to the entire level of each parking garage; Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-41 .S'tatement ofFindings ofFact • Emergency activation devices shall be located within parking structures and shall be directed to the respective police departments; and, _, __ • Rooftop addresses for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be 4 feet in height and 2 feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be 6 inches thick and be spaced 12 to 18, inches apart. All numbers shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Police Services are included in Section 3.11.2 of the Draft EIR prepazed for the project. 7.13 PUBLIC SERVICES -SCHOOLS Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with the statutory requirements of Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to school services and facilities within the Anaheim City School District (ACSD), Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), and Orange Unified School District (OUSD). Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Archstone Gatewa~~ Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-42 ~4`tatement ofFindings of Fact Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.11.3-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall _ . . pay statutory school fees pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 and proof of compliance shall be provided,Yo the respective City. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Nat Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the. mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Schools are included in Section 3.11.3 of the Draft EIR prepazed for the project. 7.14 PUBLIC SERVICES -PARKS AND RECREATION Potentially Signifcant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim for payment of a Park Facilities Fee as established by The Platinum Triangle and implemented by the Mixed Use Overlay Zone, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to parks and recreation facilities and services in the City of Anaheim. • Upon compliance with the requirements of the City of Orange Park Land Dedication Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 16.60 of the Orange Municipal Code, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to parks and recreation facilities and services in the City of Orange. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Archstane Ga[eway Project E!R No. 328 Page 1-43 Statement of~'indings of~'act Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.11.4-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property-- owner/developer. shall pay a Park Facilities Fee of $7,055.74 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Park Facilities Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.11.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay park in-lieu fees consistent with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 in accordance with the Development Impact Fees of the City's Master Fee Schedule. The fees shall be collected by the Chief Building Official or designee, and be based on the residential category in effect at the time in which the fees aze paid. (City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant envirpnmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a] [3] J Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Parks and Recreation are included in Section 3.11.4 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. ZIS PUBLIC SERVICES-LIBRARIES Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to facilities and services provided by the City of Anaheim Library System. To further reduce the effect of the proposed project on the City of Anaheim Library System, prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shalll pay a Library Facilities Fee as established for The Platinum Triangle and implemented by the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. City of Orange Upon compliance with the requirements of Chapter 3.50 of the Orange Municipal Code related to the payment of Library Facilities Development Impact Fees, the development of Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-44 .Statement ofFindings ofFaet the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to facilities and services provided by the City of Orange Library System. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Mitigation Measures: S1tR 3.11.5-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a Library Facilities Fee of $144.39 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Library Facilities Fee amount, the properly owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SItR 3.11.5-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay Library Facilities Development Impact Fees consistent with Orange Municipal Code Chapter 3.50. The fees shall be collected by the Chief Building Official, or their designees, and be based upon the residential category in effect at the time in which the fees aze paid. (City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2] J 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Librazies are included in Section 3.11.5 of the Draft EIIt prepared for the project. 7.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange Archstone Ga[eway Project E/R No. 328 Page 1-45 statement ofFindinQS ofF'act For the Year 2010, the proposed project would increase the ADT volumes on State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The Yeaz 2010__ analysis concluded that, the intersections of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue and The City Drive/Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the I'.M. peak hour without and with the proposed project. As the project-related traffic would not increase the ICU at the intersection of The City Drive/Chapman Avenue by more than 0.01, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this intersection would not be a significant impact. However, the project-related traffic would increase the ICU at the intersection of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue by 0:01 and, therefore, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this intersection would result in a significant impact. Incorporation of mitigation, requiring the addition of a second westbound right-turn lane, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. In addition, compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange standard regulatory requirements requiring the payment of traffic improvement program fees would address the proposed project's incremental contribution of traffic to these and other intersections in the project vicinity. Based on the HCM analysis of an unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue, for the Year 2010, this intersection would operate at LOS "C" without the proposed project and LOS "D" with the proposed project. As the project-related traffic would not degrade the LOS below LOS "D", the proposed project's incremental contribution to this unsignalized intersection would not be a significant impact. For the Yeaz 2010, with the exception of the southbound I-5 on-ramp at Chapman Avenue, the freeway ramps would operate at an acceptable level of service. The southbound I-5 on- ramp at Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hour. As the project-related traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this ramp would not be a significant impact. o For the Year 2025, the only measurable increase in ADT volumes would occur on State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The Year 2025 analysis concluded that eight of the study azea intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS. Of these intersections, seven intersections (Lewis StreeUOrangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevazd/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart StreeUOrangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue) would have an increase in ICU value by 0.01 or less with the proposed project. Therefore, the project's incremental contribution to these intersections would not be a significant impact. However, the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue would have an increase in ICU value by 0.02 in the F.M. peak hour with the proposed project, and, therefore, would result in a significant impact. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce this significant impact to a less than significant level. In addition, compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange standazd regulatory requirements requiring the payment of traffic improvement program fees would address the proposed project's incremental contribution of traffic to these and other intersections in the project vicinity. Based on the HCM analysis of an unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue, for the Year 2025, this intersection would operate at LOS "F" without and with the proposed project. As the project-related traffic would increase the delay per vehicle by more than one second, this would be a significant impact. Incorporation of mitigation, requiring the construction of a signal at this intersection, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Archstane Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page statement ofFrndin~s o;f'Fact o For the Year 2025, with the exception of the southbound I-5 on-ramp at Chapman Avenue, the freeway ramps would operate at an acceptable level of service. The southbound I-5 on- ....:........ ramp at Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hour. As the project-related traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, the proposed project's incremental contribution to this ramp would not be a significant impact. • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to a Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection during the Short-Range Year 2010 Conditions and the Long-Range Year 2025 Conditions. o The development of the proposed project would not result an impact related to conflicts with or exceedances of the capacity of the existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site. o The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact related to transit or the OCTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. • The development of the proposed project would not result in an impact as a result of conflicts with bikeways in the vicinity of the project site. o The development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to increased hazards from design features including the project entrances, access to and from the pazking structures, and the internal circulation system. • The development of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in an impact related to the provision of adequate pedestrian access to, from, and within the project site. o The development of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to the provision of adequate pazking. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • For the Year 2010, the signalized intersections of The City Drive/Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hour without and with the proposed project. This would be a significant cumulative impact to this intersection. The proposed project's incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impacts to this intersection would be less than significant. • For the Yeaz 2010, the intersection of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hours without and with the proposed project. This would be a significant cumulative impact to this. intersection in the Year 2010. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact to this intersection to a less than significant level. • For the Yeaz 2010, the unsigrialized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue would operate at LOS "C" without the proposed project and LOS "D" with the proposed project. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact to this intersection would occur in the Year 2010. • For the Year 2025, the southbound I-5 on-ramp at Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant cumulative impact to this on- ramp. As the project-related traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, the proposed project's incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact to this on- ramp would be less than significant. Archstane Gateway ProjeG E/R No. 328 Page 1-47 Statement oI'Findings ofFact For the Year 2025, eight of the study intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS. This would be a significant cumulative impact. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce_the,._,_ proposed project's incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact to the intersection of Manchoster Avenue/Orangewood Avenue to a less than significant level. The proposed project's incremental contribution to the intersections of Lewis StreetlOrangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue would be less than significant. For the Year 2025, the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue would operate at LOS "F" without and with the proposed project. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative impact to this intersection to a less than significant level. ® For the Yeaz 2025, the southbound I-5 on-ramp at Chapman Avenue would operate at LOS "E" during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant cumulative impact to this on- ramp. As the project-related traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, the proposed project's incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact to this on- ramp would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.12-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the properly owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees consistent with the City of Anaheim Resolution No. 93R-148 regarding Transportation Impact Fee and Improvement Fee requirements. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-2 Prior to the issuance of the fast building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a supplemental Arterial Highway Beautification/Aesthetic Impact Fee of $12,500 per gross acre. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Arterial Highway Beautification/Aesthetic Impact Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay a supplemental Traffic Fee of $871 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Traffic Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the First building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.12-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the payment of fees consistent with the City of Orange transportation fee requirements for the proposed project. The City of Orange Traffic Engineer in coordination with the Chief Building Official, or their designees, shall be responsible for verification of compliance with this requirement. {City of Orange) MM 3.12-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees for the proposed project's proportional share (calculated on an ADT basis to be six Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-48 Statement o#'Findin~s ofFact percent) of the following improvement to the intersection of Anaheim Way/ Orangewood Avenue: add second westbound right-turn lane. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.12-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department payment of fees for the proposed project's proportional shaze (calculated on an ADT basis to be four percent) of the following improvement to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue: restripe the third southbound through lane as a shared left-turn/through lane. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.12-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for a residential unit, the property owner/developer shall prepare plans and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and the project's northern entrance. Said Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division. Design may include modifications to the existing driveway serving the industrial site on the north side of Orangewood Avenue across from the project entry. (City of Anaheim) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: L (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.. (Subd: [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final E1R (Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Transportation/Traffic are included in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIIZ prepared for the project. 7,17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -WATER SERVICE Potentially Signifcant Effects: Project-Speciftc Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange o The development of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to the design of the on-site water system .and connection to the off=site water distribution facility improvements. Compliance with the standard regulatory requirements related to assessment fees and the incorporation of mitigation would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. o The proposed project has the potential to result in a significant impact related to the ability to meet the fire flow requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Compliance with the Archstane Gateway Project EIR Na. 328 Page 1-a9 ,Statement ol'Findings ofFaet standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. City of Anaheim o The proposed project would utilize between 77,363 and 112,563 gallons per day of water for the portion of the project site in the City of Anaheim. This represents an increase of 0.12 to 0.17 percent of the City of Anaheim's daily water usage. This would not be considered a significant impact on the City of Anaheim's local water supply. Compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the City of Anaheim, including Ordinance No. 5349, and the incorporation of mitigation would further reduce water consumption by the proposed project. City of Orange o The proposed project would utilize between 135,341 and 188,541 gallons peg day of water for the portion of the project site in the City of Orange. This represents an increase of 0.47 to 0.65 percent of the City of Orange's daily water usage. This would not be considered a significant impact on the City of Orange's local water supply. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.13.1-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the primary main and fire protection service fees to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.1-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Stadium Business Center Area water- facilities assessment fees and/or advances to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department in accordance with Rule 15D of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. As Rule 15D only has a calculated rate for the conversion from industrial to office/commercial, the rate will be negotiated based on the ratio of water demands for amulti-family use versus an office/commercial use. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.1-3 Prior to the approval of landscape plans or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit landscape plans to the City of Anaheim Planning Department in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Said plans shall use efficient irrigation systems including low-flow sprinkler heads, drip irrigation, and automatic systems which use moisture sensors and automatic rain shut-off devices and shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections. (City of Anaheim) MM 3.13.1-1 Prior to the first submittal of the water improvement plans for the proposed project and issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 318 Page 1-50 ,Statement ofFindin,Qs of~'act submit a water system Master Plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and the City of Orange City Engineer, or designee. The Master Plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the proposed project's water demands and fire flow requirements without reducing existing service levels or impacting any existing• water supply and conveyance facilities. If the Master Plan concludes that additional off-site improvements will be required to mitigate any impacts, such improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.13.1-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit construction plans to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department for review and approval that includes piping on-site with project water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available from the County Sanitation District of Orange County. Said piping shall be installed prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections. (City of Anaheim) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a] [2] J 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]J Reference: - The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Water Service are included in Section 3.13.1 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - WASTEWATER/SEWER SERVICE Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Lnpacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to wastewater conveyance systems or wastewater treatment facilities that serve the project site and vicinity. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange Archstone Gatewa~~ Project E!R No. 328 Page 1-51 .5'tatement ofFindings of Fact • Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a ,_ .. _. significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: None With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a](2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIIZ{Subd. [a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Wastewater/Sewer Service .are included in Section 3.13.2 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to solid waste disposal. Incorporation of mitigation would further reduce the solid waste and, therefore, the demand for landfill capacity as a result of the proposed project. Cuneulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.13.4-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a detailed Solid Waste Storage/Collection and Recycling Plan for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Arclrstone Gateway Project E!R No. 328 Page 1-51 ,statement oi'Findings of Fact Streets and Sanitation Division, and the City of Orange Public Works Director, or designee. Said Plan shall address and include the following: • Provide a written solid waste storage and collection plan for use in training maintenance employees and to monitor compliance with the proposed project's conditions of approvals, design features, and mitigation measures; and, • Bulky item collection storage. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.13.4-2 Prior to the issuance of the fast building permit, the property owner/developer shall prepare Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the proposed project for review and approval by the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Public Works Departments. Said CC&Rs shall require that the "approved" Solid Waste Storage/Collection and Recycling Plan identified in MM 3.13.4-1 be implemented in perpetuity, unless otherwise approved by both the Public Works Directors, or their designees, for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.13.4-3 Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a construction waste management plan that demonstrates that construction-generated waste is reduced by 50 percent and is consistent with AB 939. Said Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Streets and .Sanitation Division, and the City of Orange Public Works Department. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) MM 3.13.4-4 Prior to the approval of the construction building plans, to be installed prior to the first building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit building construction plans for review and approval to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and the City of Orange Public Works Department. Said Plans shall incorporate the following solid waste features into its design: • Trash chutes (with signage) shall be in locations and sufficient numbers to minimize the commingling of trash from City of Anaheim residents with City of Orange residents; Trash bins routes shall be identified from storage enclosures to trash compactors; • Trash bins and trash compactors shall be color coded as follows: blue for City of Anaheim and green for City of Orange; and, • Dual-keyed Knox devices at all vehicle access gates shall be provided to allow access for trash haulers. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1]J Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page I-53 Statement ofF'indin~s of~'act 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by _ such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. O Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, .including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a] [3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Solid Waste Disposal .Services .are included in Section 3.13.4 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.20 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -ELECTRICITY Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the electrical service and transmission. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems.. Mitigation Measures: SRR 3.13.5-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide easements and pay fees in accordance with the City of Anaheim Electric Rates, Rules, and Regulations for installation of backbone cables, switches, and related equipment to .provide electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities to .and within the development site. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.5-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit development plans for that portion of the project within the City of Anaheim to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department for review and approval. Said plans shall be designed in accordance with the City of Anaheim Electric Rates, Rules, and Regulations and shall provide for conduits and substructures (including necessary ducts, manholes, vaults and service lateral ducts). All electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities shall be underground. >f the Public Utilities Department determines that facilities (street lighting, electrical and telecommunication) need to be relocated along the project boundazies, the property owner/developer shall be required to provide new easements and pay for relocations. If the addition of new streetlights aze required to meet roadway lighting standards, the property owner/developer shall Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-54 ,Statement ofFindings ofFact instal] new street lights, per City of Anaheim design, and at no cost to the City of Anaheim prior to the first final building and zoning inspections. (City of Anaheim) SRR 3.13.5-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer. shall submit development plans for the City of Orange portion of the proposed project and shall be conditioned to require that all service and facilities will be built in accordance with Southern California Edison (SCE) policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission and other utility companies. All electrical distribution systems and telecommunication facilities shall be underground. (City of Orange) SRR 3.13.5-4 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit building construction plans to the City of Anaheim and City of Orange for review and approval. Said Plans shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (City of Anaheim and City of Orange) SRR 3.13.5-5 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each residential building, the property owner/developer shall pay an Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee of $11.42 per each residential unit in the building. If subsequent to the adoption of this mitigation measure the City of Anaheim adopts a different Electric Utilities Undergrounding Fee amount, the property owner/developer shall pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each building. (City of Anaheim) With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. (x) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. (x) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. {) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final E1R {Subd. [a][3] J Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Electricity are included in Section 3.13.5 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.21 UTYLITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -NATURAL GAS Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Lnpacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange Archstpne Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-55 ,statement of FFindings of~'aet ® The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the natural gas service. Cu»tu[ative Impacts City of Anaheim .and City of Orange o Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, the proposed project in'conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: None With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [aJ[1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers; make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. (a][3].) Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Natural Gas are included in :Section 3.13.6 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.22 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -TELEPHONE SERVICE Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange o The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant effect related to the telephone service. Therefore, no significant impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange ® Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: None Archstone Gateway Project EIR Na. 3?8 Page 1-56 Statement o#'Finding.~ of Fact With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: ()Significant (x) Not Significant Finding: 1. {)Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][I].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a] [2].) 3. () Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3J.) Reference; The discussion on .setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Telephone Service are included in Section 3.13.7 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 7.23 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -TELEVISION SERVICE/RECEPTION Potentially Significant Effects: Project-Specific Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the television service or reception. Cumulative Impacts City of Anaheim and City of Orange • Upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures: None With Mitigation the Effects are Found to be: OSignificant (x) Not Significant Finding: I. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2J.) Archstane Gateway Project EIR No. 338 Page 1-57 Statement of~'endings of Fact O Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) ~' Reference: The discussion on setting, impacts, and mitigation related to Television Service/Reception are included in Section 3.13.8 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. S.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PR®JECT ALTERNATIVES According to CEQA, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of a project, that would attain most of the basic objectives while avoiding significant environmental effects. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative. Rather, a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation should be considered.) The alternatives to the proposed project evaluated herein include the following: Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development assumes that the proposed project resulting in the development of an 884-unit multi-family residential community with on-site amenities and services would not occur. The 20.81-acre project site would remain in its current condition as previously described in the Environmental Conditions subsections in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 2 - No Project/Development Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations -Industrial and Office Alternative assumes development of the project site consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations in effect at the time the Draft EIR was prepazed. The portion of the project site within the City of Anaheim has an existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use and an existing zone designation of I (Industrial) with a Resolution of Intent to the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. Based on these designations, this Alternative assumes that the portion of the project site within the City of Anaheim would be developed with a mixture of industrial and office uses at a 2.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) resulting in approximately 919,116 squaze feet of development on 8.44 acres of the project site. The portion of the project site within the City of Orange has an existing General Plan designation of General Commercial, Overlay District D, Orangewood/State College Area, Maximum FAR 2.5 and an existing zoning designation of M-I, Light Manufacturing. Based on these designations, this Alternative assumes that the portion of the project site within the City of Orange would be developed with a mixture of industrial and office uses at a 2.5 FAR resulting in approximately 1,347,093 squaze feet of development on 12.37 acres of the project site. In total, this Alternative assumes approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office development on the project site. Primary access to the project site would occur from State College Boulevazd with secondary access from Orangewood Avenue (via a 50-foot accessway). Pazking on the project site would be accommodated in surface pazking areas and three pazking structures. Alternative 3 - Office Development Alternative assumes development of the project site generally consistent with the Uptown Orange Proposed Land Use Plan Concept dated ~ Stere of CnliComia. Tide /4. California Cade of Regulations. Chapter 9. Guidelines far (he !mplementalion ojfhe California Environmental Quality Acf, § /51?G.6. 1998. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-58 ~'tatement ofFindint?s of Fact 2000. This Alternative provides for a combination of mid-rise and high-rise pffice development on the project site. The portion within the City of Anaheim would be _. developed at a 0.35 FAR resulting in approximately 128,676 square feet of mid-rise office development on 8,44 acres of the project site. The portion within the City of Orange would be developed at a 0.75 FAR resulting in approximately 404,128 square feet of high-rise office development on 12.37 acres of the project site. In total; this Alternative assumes approximately 532,804 squaze feet of office development on the project site. Primary access to the project site would occur from State College Boulevard with secondary access from Orangewood Avenue (via a 50-foot accessway). Pazking on the project site would be accommodated in surface parking areas and two pazking structures. • Alternative 4 -Mixed-Use Alternative assumes development of the project's site with a combination of commercial office, retail, and multi-family residential. This Alternative is reflective of the land use trends in the project vicinity. This Alternative provides for the development of the project site with: office uses on approximately 6.85 acres at 0.40 FAR resulting in 119,355 squaze feet of office; retail uses on approximately 6.85 acres of 0.40 FAR resulting in 119,355 square feet of retail; and, multi-family residential on approximately 6.85 acres at a density of 43 dwelling units per acre resulting in 294 residential units. The office and retail uses, totaling approximately 238,710 square feet, would be located in the northern, western, and southern portions of the project site with the residential development located in the central and eastern portions of the project site. Primary access to the project site would occur from State College Boulevard with secondary access from Orangewood Avenue (via a 50-foot accessway). Parking on the project site would be accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures. • Alternative 5 -Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative assumes development of the project site with amulti-family residential community of 796 residential units with on-site amenities and services. The Alternative represents a ten percent reduction in the number of residential units provided with the proposed project. Primary access to the project site would occur from State College Boulevard with secondary access from Orangewood Avenue (via a 50-foot accessway). Parking on the project site would be accommodated in surface parking aeeas and two parking structures. 8.1 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT Potentially Significant Effects: The potential impacts associated with this alternative are identified below • La»d Use-Related Plans and Policies. With this Alternative, similar to the proposed project, no impact with respect to local land use-related plans and policies would occur. As there would be no changes to the existing land uses on the project site or the current use of the project site as a flea mazket/swap meet on weekends, no amendments or changes to the City of Anaheim planning programs and the City of Orange planning programs. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential significant impact due to conflicts with applicable policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • Land Use Compatibility. With this Alternative, no demolition, site preparation, grading, or construction-related activities would occur on the project site. There would be no changes to the existing land uses on the project site or the current use of the project site Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-59 ,5'tatemcnt ofFindings ofFact as a flea market/swap meet on weekends. In addition, the multi-family residential community including the three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures,. _, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would not occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not establish a land use type that would be fundamentally incompatible with the adjacent land uses. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to compatibility with the adjacent land uses. o Aesthetics. With this Alternative, no demolition, site prepazation, grading, or construction-related activities would occur on the project site. There would be no changes to the existing land uses on the project site or the current use of the project site as a flea mazket/swap meet on weekends. In addition, the multi-family residential community including the three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, .and utility improvements would not occur on the project site. This Altemative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to changes in the existing visual chazacter or quality of the project site or its surroundings. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential significant impact due to the creation of light and glaze which would affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. Further, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to shade and shadow. ® Air Quality. With this Altemative, no demolition, site prepazation, grading, or construction-related activities would occur on the project site. This Alternative would not result in construction-related emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PMro and, therefore, would avoid the proposed project's short-term significant impact to regional air quality during construction activities. In addition, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's incremental contribution to a short-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to construction activities. With this Altemative, no emissions would occur from local and regional emissions due to the on-going operations of the multi-family residential community. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's long-term less than significant impact to regional air quality from local CO emissions due to vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadways. In addition, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's long-term less than significant impact to regional air quality due to vehicle emissions, the combustion of natural gas, and off-site generation of electricity. Further, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to on-going operations of the related projects. With this Alternative, similaz to the proposed project, no impact related to inconsistencies with the AQMP would occur. In addition, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's potential less than significant impact related to odors due to the on-site solid waste disposal systems and off-site activities at the adjacent industrial land uses. o Biological Resources. With this Altemative, no demolition, site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, or constmction-related activities would occur on the project site. This Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact due to the removal of 15 trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange and the potential for inconsistencies with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Archstane Gateway Projec[ EIR No. 328 Page 1-60 .Statement ofFmdin~s ofFact o Geology and Soils. With this Alternative, no demolition, site preparation, grading, or construction-related activities would occur on the project site. In addition, the multi- family residential community including the three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would not occur on the project site: This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential less than significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and liquefaction. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential significant impacts due to compression of fill or alluvial materials and lateral spreading on the project site. o Ha:ords. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,544 residents and 18 employees, would not occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential less than significant impacts related to potential hazazdous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or hazards associated with helicopter overflight or flight paths. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential less than significant impact due to impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. ® Hydrology .and Water Quality. With this Alternative, no demolition, site preparation, grading, or construction-related activities would. occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's short-term less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities. In addition, with this Alternative, the multi-family residential community including the three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape areas, and landscape areas would not occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities and water quality during on-going project operations. o Noise. With this Alternative, no demolition, site preparation, grading, or construction- related activities would occur on the project site. This Alternative would. avoid the proposed project's short-term less than significant impact related to noise due to construction activities.. - With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community including the 884 .apartment units and the associated vehculaz traffic on-site and on the roadways in the project vicinity would not occur. This Alternative would .avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to noise at off-site exterior aeeas as a result of the addition of project-related trips to State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. Further, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact due to traffic related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general vicinity surrounding the project site. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community including three apartment buildings with 884 apartment units, integrated pazking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape areas, and landscape areas would not occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to on-site exterior areas as a result of the addition of residential units and recreational facilities within an area on the project site that would experience noise levels in excess of the City of Orange applicable noise standards. In addition, this Arclrstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-61 Statement ofFindings ofFaet Altemative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the potential for an increase in noise levels due to use of the on-site parking structures, _ moving plazas, and recreational facilities and the on-site operation of mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units).. Further, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's potential less than significant impact related to helicopter overflight from existing facilities in the project vicinity. - This Altemative would also avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the exposure of residents to groundborne vibration from vehicular traffic on the I-5 Freeway, the northbound off-ramp, and State College Boulevard. ® Population and Housing. With this Altemative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,544 residents, would not occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not remove or displace residential units or people. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to population growth and regional or local population projections. ® Pu61ic Services. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,544 residents, would not occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impacts related to the provision of fire protection services and police protection services. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to schools, pazks and recreation, and library services. o Transportation/Tra~c. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community including the 884 apartment units and the associated vehicular traffic on-site and on the roadways in the project vicinity would not occur. For the Short-Range Condition (Year 2010), this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to the intersection of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact to the remaining study area .arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. Therefore, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact. on the intersection of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue and the less than significant incremental contribution to The City Drive/Chapman Avenue and the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the p.m. peak hour. For the Long-Range Condition (Year 2025), this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue during the p.m. peak hour and the less than significant impact to the freeway ramps.. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue. This Altemative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the intersections of Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevazd/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue. In addition, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue during the p.m. peak hour. Further, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the p:m. peak hour. Archstone Gate}vay Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-62 Statement of~'indings of~'aet This Alternative would not generate additional residents that would potentially utilize public transit or other alternative transportation. Therefore, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to alternative transportation. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not result in an impact related to vehicle access, pedestrian access, or parking. Utilities and Service Systems. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,544 residents, would not occur on the project site. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impacts related to water service and solid waste disposal service. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and television service, Finding: L. OChanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EII2 (Subd. [a][3].) Rationale: This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impacts related to air quality from short-term construction emissions, geology and soils from potential compression of fill and alluvial materials and lateral spreading, long-term noise from the addition of residential units and recreational facilities in an azea with noise levels that exceed the exterior noise standards, and transportation/traffic related to additional trips at the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue for the Long-Range Conditions (Year 2025). In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant incremental contributions to cumulative impacts related to short-term and long-term regional -air quality, long-term noise levels on the roadways in the area surrounding the project site, and transportation/traffic for the Long-Range (Yeaz 2025) Conditions. Although the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project and would be technically feasible, it would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. Therefore, this Alternative is rejected from further consideration. Reference: An evaluation of the impacts expected for this Alternative in comparison to the impacts of the proposed project is included in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 8.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - NO PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS - INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE ALTERNATIVE Potentially Significant Effects: The potential impacts associated with this alternative are identified below: Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-63 .Statement of~'endings of~'act Land Use-Related Plans and Policies. With this Alternative, similar to the proposed project, no impact related to local land use-related plans and policies would occur. The _ project site would be developed consistent with the existing Cities of Anaheim and Orange zoning and General Plan designations as described above. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a potential significant impact due to conflicts with the applicable policies of the RCPG and RTP. Land Use Conrpatibili[y. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface parking area on the project site to approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office development with an FAR of 2.5. In addition to a mixture of industrial and office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and three parking structures, project access and on-site circulation, hardscape .and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to construction and operational activities, there would be the potential for the development of this Alternative to result in short-term and long-term effects to some of the adjacent land uses. As discussed in the respective subsections below, the potential incompatibility issues associated with this Alternative would have the potential to be greater than the impacts for the proposed project due to the type and increase in intensity of development that would be provided on the project site. In addition to the provision of intensive office and industrial uses adjacent to an existing residential land use to accommodate the allpwable square footage of office development, this Alternative would have the potential to result in high-rise office buildings on the project. Therefore, this Alternative would provide for development of land use types that would be fundamentally incompatible with the existing adjacent residential land use at the mobile home park immediately to the east of the project site. As a result, this Alternative would have an increased impact in comparison with the proposed project's less than significant impact related to compatibility with the adjacent land uses. Aesthetics. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface pazking area on the project site to approximately 2,266,209 squaze feet of industrial and office development with an FAR of 2.5. In addition to a mixture of industrial and office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking azeas and three parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Further, the Archstone Gateway Specific Plan for the portion of the project site in the City of Orange would not be implemented, resulting in less aesthetic control over the design of this Alternative. Upon completion of the design review process for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, due to the type and increase in intensity and mass of development that would have the potential to occur on the project site, this Alternative would result in an increased impact in compazison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to changes in the existing visual chazacter or quality of the project site or its surroundings. With construction of industrial and office buildings at the allowed intensity, the building mass and heights of the on-site development that could be provided adjacent to the off-site residential development would be greater than the residential buildings provided with the proposed project. In addition, the parking garages for industrial and office developments are not typically integrated into the buildings as with the design of the proposed project. This would result in the potential for greater changes in the views of the project site and surrounding areas in comparison with the existing conditions and the proposed project. In addition, views from the I-5 Freeway and off-ramp of off-site landmazks, such as the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Archstone Gateway Project E/R No. 328 Page 1-ti4 Statement ofFindin~.s ofd'act the "Big A" sign, have a greater potential to be blocked due to the increased mass and height of the office and industrial buildings and the associated parking facilities. Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the City of Orange, this Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's significant impact due to the creation of light and glare which would affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. This would have the potential to occur from reflective building materials such as glass, metallic surfaces, and polished natural materials that are typically used on the exterior of the office and industrial buildings. In addition, night lighting and signage could result in increased light and glare. Further, this Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to shade and shadow due to the height and mass of the buildings and reduced setbacks provided to accommodate the allowed square footage, ® Air Quality. This Alternative would result in short-term emissions due to demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities. The demolition .activities for this Alternative would be similar to those for the proposed project. The type and increase in intensity of development (resulting in larger and taller buildings) that would have the potential to occur on the project site would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations. This would result in air emissions that would be greater than for the proposed project. This would occur as a result of the use of more construction-related equipment for a longer duration to allow for the increased amount of development and additional time needed for the construction of higher-rise buildings. This Alternative would result in construction- related emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM~o and, therefore, would have an increased short-term significant impact to regional air quality during construction activities in compazison to the proposed project. In addition, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a short-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to construction activities in comparison to the proposed project. Although this Alternative's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be reduced through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, this would remain a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. Due to the provision of industrial and office land uses and an increase in vehicle trips and stationary source emissions in comparison with the proposed residential land uses, this Alternative would result in greater long-term local and regional emissions due to the on-going operations in comparison to the proposed project. This Altemative would result in an increased long-term impact to regional air quality from local CO emissions due to vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadways in compazison to the proposed project. In addition, this Alternative would result in increased long-term impacts to regional air qualiTy due to vehicle emissions, the combustion of natural gas, and off-site generation of electricity in compazison to the proposed project. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to on-going operations in comparison to the cumulative impact of the proposed project. With this Alternative, similar to the proposed project, no impact related to inconsistencies with the AQMP would occur. This Alternative would have the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-65 ,Statement of~indings of'~'act significant impact related to odors due to the on-site solid waste disposal systems and on- site industrial related uses. Biological Resources. This Alternative would result in demolition, site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related activities on the project site, Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would require the processing of a tree removal permit consistent with the requirements of the CiTy of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in the removal of 15 trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange and, therefore, result in a significant impact due to potential inconsistencies with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Geology and Soils. This Alternative would result in demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. In addition to a mixture of industrial and office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and three pazking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of higher-rise buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, this Alternative would result in potential Tess than significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and liquefaction. In addition, this Alternative would result in potential significant impacts due to compression of fill or alluvial materials and lateral spreading on the project site, similar to the proposed project. Hazards. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 2,266,209 squaze feet of industrial and office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to potential hazardous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or potential hazards associated with helicopter overflight or flight paths. In addition, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact due to potential impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazaid Functional Plan, similaz to the proposed project. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the addition of industrial and office uses to the project site. Hydrology and Water Quality. This Altemative would result in demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of higher-rise buildings that would occur on the project site. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a short- term less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities. The regulatory requirements would include the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Arcl~stone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-66 ,4tatement ofiaindings of~'act In addition, with this Alternative, a mixture of industrial and office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and three parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the type of development, this Alternative could result in a greater amount of impervious surface in comparison to the proposed project. However, it is not anticipated that this would exceed the amount of pervious surface on the project site under the existing conditions. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities. Further, upon compliance .with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, this Alternative would result in a long-term less than significant impact to water quality during on-going operations of the office and industrial land uses. The regulatory requirements would include implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Noise. This Alternative would result in demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site, Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of higher-rise buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Noise Ordinances, this Alternative would result in a short-term less than significant impact related to noise due to construction activities. Due to the provision of industrial land uses and an increase in vehicle trips (including trucks) and stationary source emissions, this Alternative would result in an increase in the ambient noise levels on the project site and adjacent to the roadways in the project vicinity during on-going operations. This Alternative would result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant long-term impact related to noise at off-site exterior areas as a result of additional vehicle trips (including trucks) on State College Boulevazd, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a long- term significant cumulative impact due to traffic related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general vicinity surrounding the project site: This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to on-site exterior azeas as a result of the .addition of residential units and recreational facilities within an azea on the project site that would experience traffic-generated noise levels from the I-5 Freeway, off-ramp, and State College Boulevard that is in excess of the City of Orange applicable noise standards. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the potential for an increase in noise levels due to use of the parking structures, moving plazas, and recreational facilities adjacent to the on-site residential uses: However; depending on the location of pazking structures, this Alternative would have the potential to result in a significant impact from parking structure related noise affecting the adjacent residents in the mobile home pazk. However, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact due to the on-site operation of mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units). Further, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a potential less than significant impact related to helicopter overflight from existing facilities in the project vicinity. Archstate Gateway Project E/R No. 328 Page 1-67 ,Statement of Findings ofFact This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the exposure of residents to groundborne vibration from vehicular traffic on the I-5 Freeway, the northbound off-ramp, and State College Boulevazd. However, employees of the businesses as a result of this Alternative would be exposed to a similar level of insignificant vibration from the adjacent roadways, therefore, also resulting in a less than significant impact related to groundbome vibration. ® Population and Housing. As this Altemative does not provide for the development of residential units, additional residents would not be directly added to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange or the region. However, with this Altemative, the development of approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. It is anticipated that the businesses that would utilize the industrial and office space would relocate from elsewhere in the region and that the potential employees would be drawn from the existing and future labor force that would be available in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the region. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a less than significant impacts related to population growth and regional or local population projections. In .addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not remove or displace residential units or people. ® Public Services. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. With the multi jurisdictional nature of the project site, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in significant impacts related to the provision of fire .protection services and police protection services due to access issues during construction activities and on-going operations. In addition, this Alternative would result in significant impacts due to the potential need for increases in staffing related to police and fire protection services, similaz to the proposed project. As this Altemative does not provide for the development of residential units, additional residents requiring schools, parks and recreation services, and library services would not be directly added to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Therefore, upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, this Alternative would reduce the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to the provision of schools, pazks and recreation, and library services. ® Transportation/Tra~c. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. For the Short-Range Condition (Yeaz 2010), in compazison to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts to the study area arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. This would occur due to the increase in vehicle trip generation from the .allowed office and industrial development in compazison to the proposed residential development. Based on an Institute of Traffic Engineers, 7th Edition (ITE) trip generation rate of 11.42 per thousand squaze feet for office and 6.96 per thousand square feet for industrial, this Alternative would have the potential to generate a total of 11,371 Average Daily Trips (ADT) in comparison to the 5,860 ADT that would occur with the proposed project. With this Altemative, approximately 2,923 trips during the A.M. peak hour and 2,675 trips during the P.M. peak hour would have the potential to occur. Therefore, in compazison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue and The City Drive/Chapman ArcHstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Fage 1-68 Statement ofFindrngs of Fact Avenue and the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. For the Long-Range Condition (Year 2025), in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts. to the study area arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. Therefore, in compazison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the significant impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour and an increase in the less than significant impact to the freeway ramps. In addition, in comparison to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue; State College Boulevazd/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue. in addition, in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M, peak hour. Further, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. This Alternative would provide industrial and office space for employees that would potentially utilize public transit or other alternative transportation: Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would have a less than significant impact related to alternative transportation. This Alternative would provide vehicle access, pedestrian access, and parking consistent with the requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Therefore, similaz to the proposed project, this Altemative would not result in an impact related to vehicle access, pedestrian access, or parking. Utilities and Service Systems. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 2,266,209 square feet of industrial and office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a significant impact related to water service and solid waste disposal services. Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the agencies and entities that would serve the project site, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and television service similaz to the proposed project. Finding: 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. OSuch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of anothez public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2],) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Archstane Gateway Project E/R No. 328 Page 1-69 Statement off'indings ofF'aet Rationale: This Alternative would reduce the proposed project's significant impacts related to long-term-- noise from the addition of residential units and recreational facilities in an area with noise levels that exceed the exterior noise standazds. However, this Alternative would have the potential to increase the impacts of the proposed project related to land use compatibility, aesthetics, long- term air quality, long-term off=site exterior noise, and transportation/traffic for the Short-Rogge (Year 2010) and Long-Range (Yeaz 2025) Conditions. Overall, this Alternative would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Although implementation of this Altemative would be technically feasible, it would not be financially feasible due to the cost of site preparation and construction of site improvements. In addition, this Altemative would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. Therefore, this Altemative is rejected from further consideration. Reference: An evaluation of the impacts expected for this Alternative in comparison to the impacts of the proposed project is included in Section 5.3 of the Draft E1R prepared for the project. 8.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 -OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Potentially Significant Effects: The potential impacts associated with this Altemative are identified below: Land Use-Related Plans and Policies. The implementation of this Alternative would require amendments and changes to the City of Anaheim planning programs and the City of Orange planning programs to allow for the development of the project .site as described above. With the approval of the appropriate amendments and changes, permits; and approvals, similaz to the proposed project, no impact related to local land use plans and policies would occur. In addition, similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a potential significant impact due to conflicts with applicable policies of the RCPG and RTP. Land Use Compatibility. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface pazking azea-on the project site to approximately 128,676 square feet of mid-rise office development with an FAR of 0.35 and 404,128 squaze feet of high-rise office development with an FAR of0.75. In addition to a total of 532,804 square' feet of office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking azeas and two pazking structures, project access and on-site circulation, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to construction and operational activities, there would be the potential for the development of this Altemative to result in short-term and long-term effects to some of the adjacent residential land 'uses. As discussed in the respective subsections below, the potential incompatibility issues associated with this Alternative would have the potential to be greater than the impacts for the proposed project due to the type and increase in intensity of development that would be provided on the project site. This Alternative would provide a combination of intensive office uses within mid-rise and high-rise office buildings on the project site, resulting in the development of a land use type that would be fundamentally incompatible with the existing adjacent residential land use at the mobile home park immediately to the east of the project site. Therefore, this Alternative Archstone Ca[eway Project EIR No. 318 Page 1-70 Statement ofFindinQS of~'aet would result in an increased impact in comparison with the proposed project's less than significant impact related to compatibility with the adjacent land uses. Aesthetics. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface parking area on the project site to approximately 128,676 square feet of mid-rise office development with an FAR of 0.35 .and 404,128 square feet of high-rise office development with an FAR of 0.75. In addition to a total of 532;804 square feet of office uses, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures, project access .and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Further, the Archstone Gateway Specific Plan for the portion of the project site in the City of Orange would not be implemented, resulting in less aesthetic control over the design of this Alternative. Upon completion of the design review process for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, due to the type and increase in intensity of development that would have the potential to occur on the project site, this Alternative would result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to changes in the existing visual chazacter or quality of the project site or its surroundings. With the construction of mid-rise and high-rise office buildings at the allowed intensity, the building mass and heights of the on-site development would be greater than the residential buildings provided with the proposed project.. In addition, parking garages for office development are not typically integrated into the buildings as with the design of the proposed project. This would result in the potential for greater changes in the views of the project site and surrounding areas in comparison with the existing conditions and the proposed project. This would include the views from the I-5 Freeway and off-ramp of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the "Big A" sign which have the potential to be blocked with the increased mass and heights of the mid-rise and high-rise office buildings and associated parking garages that would be provided with this Alternative. This Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's significant impact due to the creation of light and glare which would affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. This would have the potential to occur from reflective building materials such as glass, metallic surfaces, and polished natural materials that aze Typically used on the exterior of the mid-rise .and high-rise office buildings. In addition, night lighting and signage could result in increased light and glaze. Further, this Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to shade and shadow due to the greater height and mass of the mid-rise and high-rise office buildings and reduced setbacks provided to accommodate the allowed square footage. Air Quality. This Alternative would result in short-term emissions due to demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities. The demolition activities for this Alternative would be similar to those for the proposed project. The type and increase in intensity of development (resulting. in larger and taller buildings) that would have the potential to occur on the project site would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations. This would result in air emissions that would be greater than for the proposed project. This would occur as a result of the use of more construction-related equipment for a longer duration and increased construction activities that would be needed to develop the mid-rise and high-rise office buildings, parking facilities, and infrastructure on the project site. This Alternative would result in construction-related emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM~o and, therefore, would have an Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-71 Statement of~'indings ofla'act increased short-term significant impact to regional .air quality during construction activities in comparison to the proposed project. In addition, as this Alternative would generate greater construction-related emissions, it would result in an increased'- incremental contribution to a short-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to construction activities in comparison to the proposed project. Although this Alternative's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be reduced through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, this would remain a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. Due to the provision of office uses and the associated increase in vehicle trips in comparison with the proposed residential land use, this Alternative would result in greater long-term local and regional emissions due to the on-going operations in compazison to the proposed project. This Alternative would result in increased long- term impacts to regional air quality from local CO emissions due to vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadways in comparison to the proposed project. In .addition, this Alternative would result in increased long-term impacts to regional air quality due to vehicle emissions, the combustion of natural gas, and off-site generation of electricity in comparison to the proposed project. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to on-going operations in comparison to the cumulative impact of the proposed project. With this Alternative, there would be less development than allowed under the existing designations for the project site. Therefore, similaz to the proposed project, no impact related to inconsistencies with the AQMP would occur. Due to the increase in intensity of development on the project site, this Alternative would have the potential to result in an increase in the proposed project's less than significant impact7elated to odors from the on-site solid waste disposal systems. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to odors from the off-site activities at the adjacent industrial land uses. o Biological Resources. This Altemative would result in demolition, site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related .activities on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would require the processing of a tree removal permit consistent with the requirements of the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in the removal of 15 trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange and, therefore, result in a significant impact due to potential inconsistencies with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. ® Geology and Soils. This Altemative would result in demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. In addition to a total of 532,804 squaze feet of office uses in mid-rise and high-rise buildings, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and two pazking structures, project access .and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the Type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of mid- rise and high-rise office buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, this Alternative would result in potential less than significant Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-72 Statement ofk}ndings of~'act impacts related to seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and liquefaction. In addition, this Altemative would result in potential significant impacts due to compression of fill or alluvial materials and Lateral spreading on the project site, similar to the proposed project. • Hazards. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 532,804 square feet of office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. .Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to potential hazazdous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or potential hazards associated with helicopter overflight or flight paths. In addition, this Altemative would result in a less than significant impact due to potential impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazazd Functional Plan, similar to the proposed project. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, this Alternative would not be .anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the addition of office uses to the project site. • Hydrology and Water Quality. This Alternative would result demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Due to the Type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of mid-rise and high-rise office buildings that would occur on the project site. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, similaz to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a short-term less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities. The regulatory requirements would include the implementation of a SWPPP. In addition, with this Alternative, office uses, pazking accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the type of development, this Alternative would result in a greater amount of impervious surface in comparison to the proposed project. However, it is not anticipated that this would exceed the amount of pervious surface on the project site under the existing conditions. Therefore, similaz to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a less than significant impact to the existing on-site and ofF site storm drainage facilities. Further, upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, this Altemative would result in a long-term less than significant impact to water quality during the on-going operation of the office buildings. The regulatory requirements would include implementation of a WQMP. • Noise. This Altemative would result in demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the development of mid-rise and high-rise office buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Noise Ordinances, this Alternative would result in a short-term less than significant impact related to noise due to construction activities. Due to the provision of office uses and the associated increase in vehicle trips in comparison with the proposed residential development, this Alternative would result in an increase in the ambient noise levels on the project site and adjacent to the roadways in Archs[one Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page I-73 Statement ofFmdings ofFact the project vicinity during on-going operations. This Alternative would result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant long-term _ impact related to noise at off-site exterior areas as a result of additional vehicle trips on State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to along-teen significant cumulative impact due to traffic related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general vicinity surrounding the project site in compazison t the proposed project. This Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to on-site exterior areas as a result of the addition of residential units and recreational facilities within an area on the project site that would experience noise levels in excess of the City of Orange applicable noise standards. In addition, this Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the potential for an increase in noise levels due to use of the parking structures, moving plazas; and recreational facilities adjacent to the on-site residential uses. However, depending on the location of the pazking structures, this Altemative would have the potential to result in a significant impact from pazking structure related noise affecting the adjacent residents in the mobile home park. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact due to the on-site operation of mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units). Further, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a potential less than significant impact related to helicopter overflight from existing facilities in the project vicinity. This Altemative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the exposure of residents to groundborne vibration from vehicular traffic on the I-5 Freeway, the northbound off-ramp, and State College Boulevard. However, employees of the businesses as a result of this Alternative would be exposed to a similar level of insignificant vibration from the adjacent roadways, therefore, also resulting in a less than significant impact related to groundborne vibration. Population and Housing. As this Alternative does not provide for the development of residential units, additional residents would not be dvectly added to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange or the region. However, with this Alternative, the development of approximately 532,804 square feet of office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. It is anticipated that the businesses that would utilize the office space would relocate from elsewhere in the region and that the potential employees would be drawn from the existing and future labor force that would be available in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the region. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impacts related to population growth and regional or local population projections. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not remove or displace residential units or people. Public Services. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 532,804 square feet of office uses and the associated employees would occur on the project site. With the multi jurisdictional nature of the project site, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in significant impacts related to the provision of fire protection services and police protection services due to access issues during construction activities and on-going operations. In addition, this Alternative would result in significant impacts due to the potential need for increases in staffing related to police and fire protection services, similar to the proposed project. As this Alternative does not provide for the development of residential units, additional residents requiring schools, Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 ppge t_7q ,Statement of~'indings of~'aet parks and recreation services, and library services would not be directly added to the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, this Alternative would reduce the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to the provision of schools, pazks and recreation, and library services. Transportation/Traffic. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 532,804 square feet of office use and the associated employees would occur on the project site. For the Short-Range Condition (Year 2010), in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts to the study .azea arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. This would occur due to the increase in vehicle trip .generation from the mid-rise and high-rise office development in comparison to the proposed residential development. Based on an ITE trip generation rate of 11.01 per thousand square feet for office, this Alternative would have the potential to generate a total of 5,866 ADT in compazison to the 5,860 ADT that would occur with the proposed project. With this Alternative, the majority of the trips would occur during the peak hours resulting in approximately 827 trips (compared to 451 trips with the proposed project) during the A.M. peak hour and 794 trips (compared to 548 trips) during the P.M. peak hour. Therefore; in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue and The City Drive/Chapman Avenue and the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. For the Long-Range Condition (Year 2025), in compazison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts to the study azea arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. Therefore, in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the significant impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance .and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour and an increase in the less than significant impact to the freeway ramps.. In addition, in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevazd/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue. In addition, in compazison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. Further, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. This Alternative would provide office space for employees that would potentially utilize public transit or other alternative transportation. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to alternative transportation. This Alternative would provide vehicle access, pedestrian access, and pazking consistent ', with the requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not result in an impact related to vehicle access, pedestrian access, or parking. Archstone Ga[eivay Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-75 .Statement ofFindings ofFaet Utilities and Service Systems. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 532,804 square feet of office use and the associated employees would occur on the _ project site. This Alternative would result in a significant impact related to water service and solid waste disposal service, similar to the proposed project. Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the .agencies and entities that would'"serve the project site, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts -related wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and television service similar to the proposed project. Finding: 1. O Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. ()Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Rationale: This Alternative would reduce the proposed project's significant impacts related to long-term noise from the addition of residential units and recreational facilities in an azea with noise levels that exceed the exterior noise standards. However, this Alternative would have the potential to increase the impacts of the proposed project related to land use compatibility, aesthetics, long- term air quality, long-term off--site exterior noise, and transportation/traffic for the Short-Range (Year 2010) and Long-Range (Yeaz 2025) Conditions.' Overall, this Alternative would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Although implementation of this Alternative would be technically feasible, this Alternative would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. Therefore, this Alternative is rejected from further consideration. Reference: An evaluation of the impacts expected for this-Alternative in compazison to the impacts of the proposed project is included in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 8.4 ALTERNATIVE4-NIIXED-USE ALTERNATIVE Potentially Significant Effects: The potential impacts associated with this Alternative aze identified below: Land Use-Related Plans and Policies. The implementation of this Alternative would require amendments and changes to the City of Anaheim planning programs and the City of Orange planning programs to allow for the development of the project site as described above. With the approval of the appropriate amendments and changes, permits, and approvals, similar to the proposed project, no impact related to local land use plans and policies would occur. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a potential significant impact due to conflicts with the applicable policies of the RCGP and RTP. Archs[one Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-76 Statement of~'indinQS ofFact o Land Use Compatibility. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface parking area on the project site to .approximately 119,355 square feet of commercial office with an FAR of 0.40, 119,355 .square feet of retail with an FAR of 0.40, and 294 multi-family residential units. In addition to a total of 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail uses and 294 multi-family residential units, pazking accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures, project access and on-site circulation, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to construction and operational activities, there would be the potential for the development of this Alternative to result in short-term and long-term effects to .some of the adjacent residential land uses. As discussed in the respective subsections below, the potential incompatibility issues associated with this Alternative would have the potential to be greater than the impacts for the proposed project due to the type and increase in intensity of development that would be provided on the project site. However, with the location of the residential development within the central and eastern portions of the project site, this Alternative would not result in the development of a land use type that would be fundamentally incompatible with the existing adjacent residential land use at the mobile home park immediately to the east of the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to compatibility with the adjacent land uses. ® Aesthetics. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface pazking area on the project site to approximately 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail development with an FAR of 0.40 and 294 multi- family residential units. In addition to the mixed-use development, parking accommodated in surface parking aeeas and two parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Further, the Archstone Gateway Specific Plan for the portion of the project site in the City of Orange would not be implemented, resulting in less aesthetic control over the design of this Alternative. Upon completion of the design review process for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, due to the type and increase in intensity of development that would have the potential to occur on the project site, this Alternative would have the potential to result in an increased impact in compazison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to changes in the existing visual chazacter or quality of the project site or its surroundings. With the development of the project site as mixed-use with office uses, retail uses, and multi-family residential, the building mass and heights would be greater than the residential buildings provided with the proposed project. This Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's significant impact due to the creation of light and glare which would affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. This would have the potential to occur from reflective building materials such as glass, metallic surfaces, and polished natural materials that aze typically used on the exterior of the office and retail buildings. In addition, night lighting and signage associated with the office and retail land uses could result in increased light and glare. Further, this Alternative has the potential to result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's less than significant impact related to shade and shadow due to the height and mass of the office and retail buildings provided to accommodate the allowed square footage and number of residential units. Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-77 ,Statement oi'Findinps oi'Fact • Air Quality. This Alternative would result in short-term emissions due to demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related activities. The demolition activities for this Alternative would be similar to those for the proposed project. The Type and increase in intensity of development (resulting in larger and taller buildings) that would have the potential to occur on the project site would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations. This would result in air emissions that would be greater than for the proposed project. This would occur as a result of the use of more construction-related equipment for a longer duration and increased construction activities associated with the office and retail buildings, their pazking Facilities, and infrastructure. This Alternative would result in construction- related emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM[o and, therefore, would have an increased short-term significant impact to regional air quality during construction activities in comparison to the proposed project. In addition, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a short-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to construction activities in compazison to the proposed project. Although this Alternative's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be reduced through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, this would remain a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. Due to the provision of mixed-use development and an increase in vehicle trips in compazison with the proposed residential development, this Alternative would result in increased long-term local and regional emissions due to the on-going operations in comparison to the proposed project. This Alternative would result in increased long- term impacts to regional air quality from local CO emissions due to vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadways in comparison to the proposed project. In addition, this Alternative would result in increased long-term impacts to regional air quality due to vehicle emissions, the combustion of natural gas, and off-site generation of electricity in comparison to the .proposed project. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to on-going operations in compazison to the cumulative impact of the proposed project. With this Alternative, there would be less development in terms of intensity and square footage than allowed under the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, no impact related to inconsistencies with the AQMP would occur. Due to the increase in intensity of development on the project site, this Alternative would have the potential to result in an increase in the proposed project's less than significant impact related to odors from the on-site solid waste disposal systems related to the office .and retail uses. .Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to odors from the on-site solid waste disposal systems for the residential development and the off-site activities at the adjacent industrial land uses. • Biological Resources. This Alternative would result in demolition, site preparation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would require the processing of a tree removal permit consistent with the requirements of the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in the removal of 15 trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange and, therefore, result in Archstane Gateway Prajec[ EIR No. 328 Page I-78 Statement ofFindings of Fact a significant impact due to potential inconsistencies with the City of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Geology and Soils. This Alternative would result in demolition, site prepazation, grading, or construction-related activities on the project site. In addition to mixed-use development, parking accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the construction of office and retail buildings in addition to residential buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, this Alternative would result in potential less than significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and liquefaction. In addition, this Alternative would result in potential significanf impacts due to compression of fill or alluvial materials and lateral spreading on the project site, similar to the proposed project. Haeards. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail and 294 multi-family residential units with the associated employees and residents would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to potential hazardous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or potential hazards associated with helicopter overflight or flight paths. In addition, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact due to potential impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, similaz to the proposed project. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazazdous materials, this Alternative would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact due to the addition of mixed-use development to the project site. Hydrology and Water Quality. This Alternative would result in demolition, site prepazation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Alternative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the construction of office and retail buildings in addition to residential buildings that would occur on the project site. Upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a short-term less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities. The regulatory requirements would include the implementation of a SWPPP. In addition, with this Alternative, a mixture of commercial office, retail, and multi-family residential uses, pazking accommodated in surface parking areas and two parking structures, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Due to the type of development, this Alternative would result in a greater amount of impervious surface in compazison to the proposed project in order to accommodate the squaze footage of development and the associated parking facilities. However, it is not anticipated that this would exceed the amount of pervious surface on the project site under the existing conditions. Therefore, Arrchstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-79 ,Statement ofF'endings of~'act similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities. Further, upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, this Alternative would result in a long-term less than significant impact to water quality during the on-going operation of the office, retail, and residential development. The regulatory requirements would include a WQMP. Noise. This Alternative would result in demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Due to the type and increase in intensity of development, this Altemative would result in an increase in excavations during grading activities to provide more extensive building foundations to accommodate the construction of office and retail buildings in addition to residential buildings that would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Noise Ordinances, this Alternative would result in a short-term less than significant impact related to noise due to construction activities. Due to the provision of commercial office, retail, and multi-family residential and the associated increase in vehicle trips and stationary noise sources, this Altemative would result in an increase in the ambient noise levels on the project site and adjacent to the roadways in the project vicinity during on-going operations. This Alternative would result in an increased impact in comparison to the proposed project's long-term less than significant impact related to noise at off-site exterior aeeas as a result of additional vehicle trips on State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. Further, this Alternative would result in an increased incremental contribution to a long- term significant cumulative impact due to traffic related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general vicinity surrounding the project site. With the placement of the residential units and amenities towards the center and eastern portions of the project site, this Altemative would avoid the proposed project's significant impact to on-site exterior areas as a result of the addition of residential units and recreational facilities within an area on the project site that would experience noise levels in excess of the City of Orange applicable noise standazds. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to the potential for an increase in noise levels due to use of the pazking .structures, moving plazas, recreational facilities, and mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units) adjacent to the on-site residential uses. This Alternative would have the potential to have a less than significant impact due to the on-site operation of mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units) for the commercial office and retait uses adjacent to the on-site residential units and off-site mobile home park. Further, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a potential less than significant impact related to helicopter overflight from existing facilities in the project vicinity. This Alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impact related to the exposure of residents located on the southern and western portions of the project site to groundborne vibration from vehicular traffic pn the I-5 Freeway, the northbound off-ramp, and State College Boulevard. However, employees of the businesses as a result of this Alternative would be exposed to a similar level of insignificant vibration from the adjacent roadways, therefore, also resulting in a less than significant impact related to groundborne vibration. Arclastane Gateway Projec! EIR No. 328 Page 1-80 ,Statement of~'indint;s of~'act Population and Housing. With this Altemative, the development of approximately 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail development and 294 multi-family residential units and the associated employees and residents would occur on the project site. It is anticipated that the businesses that would utilize the additional industrial and office space would relocate from elsewhere in the region and that the potential employees would be drawn from the existing and future labor force that would be available in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the region. Similar to the proposed project, the number of residents generated by the 294 multi-family residential units would not be considered significant. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a less than significant impacts related to population growth and regional or local population projections. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not remove or displace residential units or people. Public Services. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail development and 294 multi-family residential units and the associated employees and residents would occur on the project site. With the multi jurisdictional nature of the project site, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in significant impacts related to the provision of fire protection services and police protection services due to access issues during construction activities and on-going operations. In addition, this Alternative would result insignificant impacts due to the potential need for increases in staffing related to police and fire protection services, similar to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with standazd regulatory requirements, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to schools, parks and recreation services, and library services. Transportation/Tra~c. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 238,710 squaze feet of commercial office and retail development and 294 multi-family residential units and the associated employees and residents would occur on the project site. For the Short-Range Condition (Year 2010), in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts to the study azea arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. This would occur due to the increase in vehicle trips generated by the mixed-use development in comparison to the proposed residential development. Based on an ITE trip generation rate of 11.01 per thousand square feet for office, 44.32 per thousand squaze feet for retail, and 5.86 per apartment unit, this Alternative would have the potential to generate a total of 8,326 ADT in comparison to the 5,860 ADT that would occur with the proposed project. With this Alternative, the majority of the trips would occur during the peak hours resulting in approximately 315 trips (compared to 451 trips with the proposed project) during the A.M. peak hour and 655 trips (compared to 548 trips) during the P.M. peak hour. Therefore, in compazfson to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue and The City Drive/Chapman Avenue and the southbound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. For the Long-Range Condition (Year 2025), in comparison to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in an increase in the less than significant and significant impacts to the study area arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. Therefore, in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the significant impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and Archstate Gate}vay Project EIR No. 328 .Page 1-81 ~'tatement ofFinding~ of Fact the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour .and an increase in the less than significant impact to the freeway ramps. In addition, in comparison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersections of Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue., Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue. In addition, in compazison to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. Further, this Alternative would result in an increase in the incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact on the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M, peak hour. This Alternative would provide industrial and office space for employees that would potentially utilize public transit or other alternative transportation. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to alternative transportation. This Alternative would provide vehicle access, pedestrian access, .and parking consistent with the requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would not result in an impact related to vehicle access, pedestrian access, or parking, Utilities and Service Systems. With this Alternative, the development of approximately 238,710 square feet of commercial office and retail development and 294 multi-family residential units and the associated employees and >•esidents would occur on the project site. This Alternative would result in a significant impact related to water service and solid waste disposal, similaz to the proposed project. Upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the agencies and entities that would serve the project site, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and television service similar to the proposed project. Finding: 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. OSuch changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3].) Rationale: This Alternative would reduce the proposed project's significant impacts related to long-term noise from the addition of residential units and recreational facilities in an area with noise levels that exceed the exterior noise standards. However, this Alternative would have the potential to increase the impacts of the proposed project related to aesthetics, long-term air quality, long-term Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-82 statement off'indings of~'act off-site exterior noise, and transportation/traffic for the Short-Range (Year 2010) and Long- Range (Yeaz 2025) Conditions. Overall, this Altemative would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Although implementation of this Alternative would be technically feasible, this Alternative would not meet any of the objectives for the proposed project. Therefore, this Alternative is rejected from further consideration. Reference: An evaluation of the impacts expected for this Altemative in comparison to the impacts of the proposed project is included in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. 8.5 ALTERNATIVE 5-LOWER INTENSITY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE Potentially Significant Effects: The potential impacts associated with this Alternative are identified below: Land Use-Related Plans and Policies. The implementation of this Alternative would require amendments and changes to the City of Anaheim planning programs and the City of Orange planning programs as described for the proposed project in subsection 2.5 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft E1R. With the approval of these requested discretionary actions, permits, and approvals, similaz to the proposed project, no impact related to local land use plans and policies would occur. )n addition, similar to the proposed project, with this Alternative would result in a potential significant impact with respect to the policies of the RCPG and RTP. Land Use Compatibility. This Alternative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site and surface parking area on the project site to ahigh-density multi-family residential community with three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements. Similar to the proposed project, due to construction and operational activities, there would be the potential for the development of this Alternative to result in short-term and long-term effects to some of the adjacent land uses. As discussed in the respective subsections below, the potential incompatibility issues associated with this Altemative would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level upon compliance with standard regulatory requirement or the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in the development of a land use type which would be fundamentally compatible with the existing adjacent residential land use at the mobile home pazk immediately to the east of the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to compatibility with the adjacent land uses. Aesthetics. This Altemative would result in the conversion of the former drive-in movie theater site .and surface parking area on the project site to ahigh-density multi-family residential community with three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hazdscape and landscaping, and utility improvements. This Alternative would include a Specific Plan for the portion of the project site in the City of Orange. Implementation of the Specific Flan would provide greater control over the design of this Alternative, as with the proposed project. similaz to the proposed project, upon completion of the design review process for the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, this Alternative would result in a less than significant Archstave Gateway+Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-83 Statement of~'indings of~'act impact related to changes in the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its surroundings. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would have the potential to result in a significant impact due to the creation of light and glare which would affect day or night time views in the project vicinity. Further, this Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to shade and" shadow, similar to the proposed project. ® Air Ouality. This Alternative would result in short-term emissions due to demolition, site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related activities. Althcugh 88 less apartment units would be constructed with this Altemative, the demolition and grading activities which result in the worst-case air emissions would be essentially the same as for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in construction-related emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PMto and, therefore, would have a short- term significant impact to regional air qualiTy during construction activities, In addition, this Alternative would result in an incremental contribution to a short-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air quality due to constmction activities, similar to the proposed project, Although this Alternative's incremental contribution to this significant impact would be reduced through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, this remains a significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impact, similar to the proposed project. This Altemative would result in long-term local and regional emissions due to the on- going operations of the multi-family residential communiTy. Due to the reduction in the number of apartment units, this Altemative would slightly reduce the proposed project's long-term less than significant impact to regional air quality from local CO emissions due to vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadways. In addition, this Altemative would slightly reduce the proposed project's long-term less than significant impact to regional air qualiTy due to vehicle emissions, the combustion of natural gas, and off-site generation of electricity. Further, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to a long-term significant cumulative impact related to regional air qualiTy due to on-going operations of the related projects. With this Altemative, similaz to the proposed project, no impact related to inconsistencies with the AQMP would occur. )n addition, similar to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a less than significant impact related to odors due to the on-site solid waste disposal systems and off-site activities at the adjacent industrial land uses. o Biological Resources. This Altemative would result in demolition; site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. Similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would require the processing of a tree. removal permit consistent with the requirements of the CiTy of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. Similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in the removal of 15 trees on the portion of the project site in the City of Orange, and, therefore, result in a significant impact due to inconsistencies with the CiTy of Orange Tree Preservation Ordinance. o Geology and Soils. This Alternative would result in demolition, site prepazation (including tree removal), grading, and construction-related activities on the project site. In addition, the multi-family residential community including the three aparhnent Archstane Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-89 Statement off'indings of~'aet buildings, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape and landscaping, and utility improvements would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the grading and building codes of the Cities of ' Anaheim and Orange, this Alternative would result in potential less than significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and liquefaction. In addition, this Altemative would result in potential significant impacts due to compression of fill or alluvial materials and lateral spreading on the project site, similar to the proposed project. • Ho=ards. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,390 residents and 15 employees, would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to potential hazazdous conditions or operations on the surrounding properties or potential hazards associated with helicopter overflight or flight paths. In addition, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact due to potential impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with the City of Anaheim Disaster Plan or the City of Orange Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, similar to the proposed project. • Hydrology and Water Quality. This Alternative would result in demolition, site preparation, grading, and construction-related. activities on the project site. Upon compliance with Federal, State, .and local regulatory requirements, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a short-tens less than significant impact to water quality during construction activities. The regulatory requirements would include the implementation of a SWPPP. In addition, with this Altemative, the multi-family residential community including the three apartment buildings, integrated parking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape areas, and landscape azeas would occur on the project site. The amount of pervious and impervious surfaces would be the same as for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to the existing on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities. Further, upon compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, similaz to the proposed project, this Altemative would result in a long-term less than significant impact to water quality during the on-going operation of the residential development. The regulatory requirements would include implementation of a WQIVIP. • Noise. This Alternative would result in demolition, site preparation, grading, or construction-related activities on the project site. Although 88 less apartment units would be constructed with this Alternative, the demolition and grading activities which represent the worst-case noise generation would be essentially the same as for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, upon compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Noise Ordinances, this Altemative result in a short-term less than significant impact related to noise due to construction activities: In addition, with this Alternative, amulti-family residential community including the 796 aparhnent units and the associated vehicular traffic on-site and on the roadways in the project vicinity would occur. Due to the reduction in the number of apartment units, this Alternative would slightly reduce the number of vehicle trips and, therefore, noise generation related to vehicle traffic. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a long-term less than significant impact related to noise at off-site exterior areas as a result of the addition of project-related trips to State College Archs[one Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page I-85 ,Statement ofFmdings ol'Faet Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. Further, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in an incremental contribution to a long- _ term significant cumulative impact due to traffic related noise levels adjacent to the roadways in the general vicinity surrounding the project site. This Alternative's incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant With this Alternative; amulti-family residential community including three apartment buildings with 796 aparhnent units, integrated pazking structures, recreational facilities, project access and on-site driveways, hardscape areas, and landscape azeas would occur on the project site. Similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a significant impact to on-site exterior azeas as a result of the addition of residential units and recreational facilities within an area on the project site that would experience noise levels in excess of the City of Orange applicable noise standazds. With the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level In addition, similaz to the proposed project, upon compliance with the Cities of Anaheim and Orange Noise Ordinances, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to the potential for an increase in noise levels due to use of the on-site parking structures, moving plazas, and recreational facilities and the on-site operation of mechanical equipment (trash compactors and air conditioning units). Further, this Alternative would result in a potential less than significant impact related to helicopter overflight from existing facilities in the project vicinity, similaz to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to the exposure of residents to groundbome vibration from vehicular traffic on the I-5 Freeway, the northbound off-ramp, and State College Boulevard, Population and Housing. With this Alternative, amulti-family residential community resulting in approximately 1,390 residents, would occur on the project site. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in a less than significant impacts related to population growth and regional or local population projections and would be slightly reduced in relation to the proposed project. Similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would not remove or displace residential units or people. Public Services. With this Alternative, the multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,390 residents, would occur on the project site. This Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's significant impacts to fire protection services and police protection services. Upon compliance with standard regulatory requirements, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to schools, pazks and recreation, and library services. Transportation/Tra~c. With this Alternative, amulti-family residential community including the 796 apartment units and the associated vehiculaz traffic on-site and on the roadways in the project vicinity would occur. Based on the WOCS traffic model trip generation rate of 6.63 per apartment, this Alternative would have the potential to generate a total of 5,264 ADT in comparison to the 5,860 ADT that would occur with the proposed project. For the Short-Range Condition (Year 2010), this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant and significant impacts to the study azea arterial highway intersections and freeway ramps. In addition, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the intersections of Anaheim Way/Orangewood Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-86 Statement of~Yndings of~'act Avenue and The City Drive/Chapman Avenue and the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. For the Long-Range Condition (Year 2025), this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's significant impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour and the less than significant impact to the freeway ramps. With the incorporation of mitigation measures as recommended for the proposed project, the impact to the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the intersections of Lewis Street/Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim Way/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Rampart Street/Orangewood Avenue, and SR-57 Southbound Ramp/Orangewood Avenue. Iri addition, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Orangewood Avenue and the unsignalized intersection at the project entrance and Orangewood Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. Further, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on the south bound I-5 Freeway on-ramp at Chapman Avenue during the P,M. peak hour. This Alternative would slightly reduce the number bf residents that would potentially utilize public transit or other alternative transportation. Therefore, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant impact related to altemative transportation. This Alternative would provide vehicle access, pedestrian access, and parking consistent with the requirements of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. Therefore, similaz to the proposed project, this Alternative would not result in an impact related to vehicle access, pedestrian access, or parking. o Utilities and Service Systems. With this Altemative, a multi-family residential community, including approximately 1,390 residents, would occur on the project site. This Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's significantimpacts related to water service and solid waste disposal services. In addition, upon compliance with the standard regulatory requirements of the agencies and entities that would serve the project site, this Alternative would slightly reduce the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and television service. Finding: 1. ()Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effect. (Subd. [a][1].) 2. OSuch changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Subd. [a][2].) 3. (x) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR{Subd. [a][3].) Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-87 Statement ofFindings ofl~'act Rationale: This Alternative would reduce the proposed project's significant impacts related to long-term.air_. quality and transportation/traffic related to additional trips at the intersection of Manchester Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue for the Long-Range Conditions (Year 2025). In addition,. this Alternative would reduce the proposed project's significant incremental contributions to cumulative impacts related to short-term and long-term regional air quality, long-term noise levels on the roadways in the azea surrounding the project site, and traffic for the Short-Range and Long-Range (Yeaz 2025) Conditions. Overall, this Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Although implementation of this Alternative would be technically feasible and this Altemative would meet the objectives for the proposed project, it would not be financially feasible due to the cost of the site preparation and construction of the site improvements. Therefore, this Alternative is rejected from further consideration. Reference: An evaluation of the impacts expected for this Altemative in compazison to the impacts of the proposed project is included in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR prepazed for the project. 9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIIDING CONSIIDEI2ATIOIVS In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the lead agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043., subd. [b].) The project requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations as significant air qualiTy impacts (short-term air quality impacts during demolition and grading activities) remain unavoidable adverse impacts after compliance with standard regulatory requirements and incorporation of a mitigation measure into the project. The City of Anaheim Planning Commission/City Council has balanced the benefits of the project againsi these unavoidable adverse environmental effects and has determined that the following benefits outweigh and render acceptable these environmental effects: • The project will provide for the development of multi-family rental housing in an area of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange where services and infrastructure aze available and where new residents wilt enhance the vitality of the surrounding community. (Section 2.0 Draft EIIt No. 328) • The project will provide a superior quality rental community emphasizing unique architectural design and a development program that increases site and building efficiencies while establishing high quality standazds for building plans and open space. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) • The project will provide for the development of amulti-family rental community that is designed to meet the housing needs for those workers associated with the surrounding businesses and service providers. (Section 2,0 Draft EIIt No. 328) o The project will help meet the land use goals of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange to provide quality, higher density development close to job centers and regional transportation. (Section 2.0 Draft E1R No. 328) ~frchstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-88 statement of~'indings oi'ia'act o The project will help implement the CiTy of Anaheim's vision far The Platinum Triangle, which is to provide for an urban-living center which includes higher .. _. density housing, mixed use, public recreational, office, industrial, institutional, open space, and other supporting land uses. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) • The project will help implement the City of Orange's vision for the Uptown District,,, which is to provide for a complementary mix of uses including a range of higher densiTy housing types, office, commercial, recreational, and other supporting uses in the West Orange Area. (Section 2.0 Draft EIRNo. 328) • The project will help achieve the goals and design principles of the Redevelopment Agency for the Orange Merged and Amended Redevelopment Project Area and .Southwest Design Standards. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) • The project will provide for adequate public safety with regazd to access, traffic and circulation, and parking, including the sepazation of vehicular and pedestrian activities. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) • The project will provide for the landscaping of the overall development in a manner that is compatible and supportive of the adjacent community. (Section 2.0 Drafr EIR No. 328) • The project will provide for adequate resident and visitor parking and pedestrian access within the residential community. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) • The project will provide community amenities and resident services including two clubhouses (with fitness centers, business center, and sports center, and resident service center), three pool azeas, a sports court, extensive landscape areas, and gated entries. (Section 2.0 Draft EIR No. 328) 10.0 INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALXSIS Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR, (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; and (3) as part of the certification of the Final E1R, find that the report or declazation reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. (Public Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. [c].) The CiTy of Anaheim circulated the draft document and independently reviewed and analyzed the Final E1R. With the adoption of these findings, the City of Anaheim finds that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. ~**~***a Archstone Gateway Project EIR No. 328 Page 1-89 N a Q N F Nr ° eu v L y E ~ ._ 3 . . a ~ a = c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ° o E `o o > o°1n E c -O o ro ° ^' c ^ O ti O~ = t N N ~„ ~~ C, T ~ N ' .O o ~' - • •o '° m ~ 5 aEi E L y A o s 'D L d ap. L Y N N ~° p ° o =~_ A ~ ~ .E m m " d o ~ ~ ~~._ E .. pp LAN t s r'E E. y ~' _ m c N F~ o A G 3 'I.` c E °= ° m ' ~E o E L C C w C ct p O E w+ ° y O O N y p . V G. ° ~' C.' o v U U t d ° O r N d ~ ~ =~ [ .n N O H 3 OA ^ W C O S~ C 7L' N'O N d~C L N. U °~ > C ^ N ~ T E ~ S~ N ~ L A G ® ~ E ° ~ `p° H ° ~ ~ ~ ' ~ a c o c r y o ~ ~"' o °s' a v °S ' c.E °o .~ ~ ~ A ° c ro n n v E E m o, o ~ c 'n N ' 3~ L. O O 7 LL C C a~ C y ~-• C O d L C O~ ,~ y~ d [d C y Q' E ~ U r+ ~ G N ® ~ 5 > a°~F.g E V•=~ ~ °-° o Ew° ono GL ~ c ~ V. E~ ° c ' ' m ~ v ~ `c' E ~E ro~ o ' c o . s v W V C .5 ~ 5 C _ •E ~` ~ ' ° m Q C O '~ y . y O T1 p ' b 0 G O . E 9 ® N d 7 ~ O O U 'C C O ~J' N C E G p d "' ' 7 N u ~ N° y. O b E FI N O ~ ° C N . G L O O '7 ~ E v L , U C A V] ~ U I.p v O .C i i ~ ~~ O A 'O N O `n .~ O y y y 0 O N ~i w,O~~ v Eun. E~~Q,-O m °5~~m E o ° E oLA a v^ E itl Lo >. ~ o - o ~ v v v° d . ° E ~ A 3 y ~ y 'O N pL ° w G O 0 C oq ~, E k' r w o~~ ~ I E~ ~ nn o o 3 ~ m ° y y~ Vl ~ C N D ' B Y O .~ N L ~° L Fu ~ •y y p o o C1 E ° N • '` y .. d 3 c c y UJ VJ L ~ o O a o ~ a ~ v I y 2 d c }C N ~ ' ° 3 :: ~ E m e° y `o' 3 E E v ^ L 1~ ~~5 a ° o c A .5 = ~ ~ . ~0 C " C 5' ° ' •L E a c~ c ° °' >. ,v .D N y U n ~ .-. i p _ ~ c O O '~ O ° ° O en o ° ' ~' .C .~ C ° W E x s ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ n td ~ •^ a ~ ~ o ~ o F, ~ mo o y 9 y E . m° E c • o f enY > E° _ N I"' ' ~ ~ o v m i° " E "_' c V E Q ~ E .n v .o m C.°_ ,y m O o 4 e o Lo on p c [i ~ `o ~ .°'. ~ w v O u ~Y O Q C > O ~' G N y an 'O 2 o9 ^ Y 4: d CO C y b C p ~'~ ~ ~ ova, F 3 a3~ a= O Es °e ° E o u v y ~ y °~ E W i~ ~ y . ~ v U 0. .° h ~ G. F .. ri ri a v ~, ?o a a'0. 'o m 0 4 Us m e o ~ 5 U L+ ev E On ~ i ~ ,.' w ++ d Lam' ~; w w C C C C C° N C N ~5 C° y °" U~ °J °' ° c o a c ° •v o dQ.y U~ o °q~~Q ESE m ~A;~O m 00 c •? c c? .~ s' U~ c c? ~ c~ ~~ Q E E O o c~ . ;° Q o E ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ w EC] . ~ ~ ~ o-~ o ~ . o ~ C .5 p o ~ ~ e4 o ~ ° 0.5 o - en C ~ >> C L' N ~p J~"~ N N L R1 U ~'. ~ ~ U ~ y N` v Q U Q a U Q a 0 ~ !~ a U Q a O y 0 9 C i U U ° ~ ~ E a ,,; ~ . y ` 5w-v~e N ~ C OA U ~ w w U N O ~ ° '0O ~_, G ~ y V ti U ~ +~.. ~ ,r Qo ° .0 3 °' o `" ~' " m m° m ~ ~ R'O .5 a~ A ~ C .^. w 0 W 'O r G ~ ~ ~ ° '° `o p y O A C ;,w >u.o Q Y ~ ~ N T. p; ao ~, ~ E `° ° 3 E o ~ o v U O y ~+' ~ C `o = a `o pC •4 N O -O ~d a. ~ n. U a. v 4 ~ ° 3 O O U U ~ v CC U C L •e0 8 3 ,°°• Q ° p ~. ~G ~ ?~ ~ C C N L° O ~~ ~ w a •„ ° ~~~ s '~ vi v v .., .O .~+ a 5 N ~, ^. A ~ gw~ Ol ~ c. O 0 O -ry m ~ 7 N U ~ C ~ A A U ~ N ~ '~ O y Rt ~- 'v o - :: 'v f0 ~° a.hE c 0 ~ C ° .O _ r ^ ' ~ On L O C R1 ' . ~ O A C y 'O ' UB c .7 .° .° B ~ . g m= m o~ = v' • ~ N , Li ' ° 4n ~ Y L °~ ~v y E~- ~ C O ~ O ' •y m b- ~ ~ o z°~ .°A v $ ~o a c m -, y o . d C N 'fl T~ 0 .5 ° o~ v 3 n . '° W L O b U ~ ~ ~ O ° ~ ~ 0 q L Q. N U °° N °v 'ia' m v ~ O .~ en0 Cw ~ . •-~O U O ~ O O w d U 5 C =On 00 ~' O . ~°•° ~ ~ -' °' - U ~ 000 O w C C +~,+ w ' e4 ^ ens v ° o ~O= N DD ~ o vi U C ~ „ ~.. j 'n ti ~' E L .., m m :- U .~. y y L ~ 0. y °' s 5 ~ '° U > .C C F N _, ~ ~ O C O. N C C L1. . ~~ 'O b N '00 N ~ ~ O N L ~ C p, C ~~ a + ~ N O'y 'N O O U C O .~ en ~ b O . .p ~ c C ie 5 ~° ~ m 'G i . s a ~ ~ .saa. L ~ .~ ;?- E e nE m ~ C ~ ~ b4 C C W 4 ~ ;0 W Q O L ~ ~ ~ N U y .° ~ ~ ., .O a> `~ .. L U C ~ ' + ~ y° ~ a w ~ ^ Q 'c O w >. C ~ N~ O U 7 o ~. .`O ~ U ° a ~t v c no m v c y O~ 0 Q E= C N O U ~ b0 nl ~... o c o.~ a ^-s a o G ° ~ R . Q w' ~+ M N e7 M M ...i ~ to M e ~1 Nj NN N b0 bn H 5 .5 w d4 ~° v o a mmm N m w '`-` _ w w w O O~~ y w O w O wO ~y U N U ~+ ~ C •" C U U C U 0 N U +' . ~ 6 N O 4 v i p ' v y . 0. ~~ C h 'U ' ° C ~ ~ ~ 9 .C a a a. w 3 a` a. . w` ~ a` ~ ~, a~ oa C ca a 0 C O ti0 C N tl `.C l L~ U d Y d . A ~ Q~. l:0 7c U C w p w •D O m G .C, ~ E ~" G ~ 6 ~y 1. U (~ d W C (] a . .c_ °~°~ c N ~ G G c `o L o w3 03 _'a`ni'.. o .3 0 .U a ~; V a. V a. O y L N U C ~ C ~ •O y ° O t _ '° G U i~ v ~ ~ w o °~ w > >. ~3 'y G ~ c "m ~.. ~ o U 'o 0 E o E 0• E in .N. `~ "" CO 7 ^ .p N C Uy L ,L, U G m .O T "^ w o N O L R. 'O U L y O G ~` ~ O C ~ G m ~' . , G pin O~~ y w d O N . .. .0.. • A. y C .3 C w 4 E. L .~ L N ~ E u~ G O Y s N G .n ~ o N o o ° m v°. ~ L~ ~' Y ~ m o o ~ 3~ .n I. . o N O U~ R.~ b t d t~ .~ C G> O O~ w v ro L~ G G w C 'D op = C U O d b N G G 7 ,t y 'b b N' N U C . N .C U N ?) N N a> ° ~ ~ y E " E.n ° o N N L L ~ GL ~C. =U~GO. ^ ~ m 'C n'N p a ~UyO ~ c ~ yNC c~ m G U ~ N c U.~ S C L N ~ U a + O t G ''~ O .~ ~' .I ""' N 'p '~ d C G C A A O •m N ~° O^ • C ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O 'O G ' y O U N~ O 4 v ~ C D L p G 3 In tp y U O~ U ~n L ' ~' C lFyi l o~ C w ~ y 'O A ._: N t0 C rn N N ~ C r N~ ~' 'C 'O ~ '° d 'O G S N d y~ C .n > 0 t y v~ om' ~ C O ' W O L 'J' L G 7 0 p U ~ C p ? 1. ..N.. L.N+ O a .O iJ v G ~ ly N r rn N C vi ~ O b L ~ O U vi O ++ E . G fla w N C] 5 ' K ~ y ° ~ 3 ° • y ' C ° ~ ° ~ N , $ ° ° ~ ° c . .n : . ~ ~ .~ d ai N > 3 lti c E ~ .p. tQ c O U O O O Y •--~ N v.~ ti > •U t 0 O C U U N 0A N E 'NO 7~ .NC E N 7 •`~ ~ y C C O~ O w _' X C . p O cC .~ ~ A d N O N ~ >~ N N O C ~y ~ G b M ,O q vi U 4 ~ , N G w_ N w O v« N O p w N y e L a O Y N C W~ G O O ~ C C W N = b ~ •o O •C 7~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~? N U > C ~ Q O Q w Q > G O N " ' m N E `~ O.N. O ~ O d y YJ - .C C ~ o :~ ,~ ~ ~• ai ,N_ ~ N i c p p a a c ~ d ^- . 'C ~ G . is ~ ~ v na. ~ 'ep _ ~ a a z °' v E= fi7 v 3 °' Q Q c t 3 Q y~ ° Q Q v • a a U c ;> d u `o E 1O . o N L ~I ri uz o `o ~ eu h N N ~ t G 'O .V C L C U G y L ~ ~ V 3 c ~, O y ~ G G .. ~.`n. •D .~ C E > _ `oo' c~~ ~ " m a ° °. E ~ '~' "7 m C ~ C v~ oD O ~ ~ p ~ G U ~. Q p. CO 4..p0 O 'CO F M U O y O o°-o U d O 4 ~ F `o v ° O ~ 5 O U ~+ Q V ,r 9 ,_d '~; d A' E 0 IU w .:..: C O ~.., ~L ly C O N ~° x E ° ~ + W z ~ m c ~ d m. E Ca d ° 'E N o w3 p3 'y o P o .~ a ~~ ~.~ Ua Uoc. ~ ~ ~ ~ N w O °' m ° •. 'O t ° ° .3 U ' V N y o G O >> . in C] Y" > y„ C d OJ m L u E ~i a°'i on 3 :p ° a~ > cy F v .: v u c~i .n .S E m ~. .. N a ~ _ m •C .E N ~ "' Y e t Op td +-' W V C W W ` N x .O OD m ro °' v ~ a. ~ w e : o ~ o > c i ~ ~ ~ a, , w a i o .°~. o. .c =' 3 ~ o~ v m m d 0 .c °•= m Q ,n c c c .. w° 'm o,c ti °v ~ ~ E ~w °? N ~ •a , 'E 3 v z ° ~° a`i c a y; ~. '~ v ° ° ~ °c c m nuv °' o ° ' a ~ °' ° u ~.o y . ° ~ d c . c ° ~ ^ °' . N '~ ~ ~ . ~ v a°i m t .0 3 c ~ s S y o ". ~ v w c .; •E N G '^~ .Q X w •~ O U m V ai ~ .r ~ V W O ..~ W vi 'O y V A a . N 9 N W v W ~ 'fl € •> p V C a ~ C ~' v O j s O C N E ro w . O >, .. 'm s •y c a m a ° ° m ~ w a ° ° avi y a o ~ ~ d y N v .~ _ ~ ° , oo .. ti G ... .Y W^ N v . 7 • ~ ~ ~ H C d ~ UJ a ~ L A C :a .~ U .~ C W b y~ Y~ C« ~ V ~ rn a ~"' N. O O v a E y y ~ - w `o c- W ~ ° ` o c w° m o ^ °' E ^ ^° u m , • ~~ 3 .o N a o d a 3 ~ y o 0 0 o c D`°' c ° u ? m ~ o a ~ ~- E 5 2 ~ ' ca •~ ~ a °' ' a i L ~ C ~ ~ ~cu>° '~~' E > E •, -~ e a C s• E i t N U U ~ „ Y ~ W L C ' O U ~ m C N S ~ O y_ C "' ~ C_ O n v~ ' ry O > ~ Y d O C7 ~ V •p ~~ L4 C ' A O p ~ a E O - ' y V .D C N 0 O C ~ ` t' t V ._ « ~ c y y ° . W o ` a " V p 0 • « V O y V ' i- ~ N ;p-, ° ~ h °o `o ~ .~ ~ ' ,n c a i , ° m r mss 3 Q ' 3 c 3 y a H ~ a °-' v i a ~ ° ° - a O W N o y w v C ., w •m.U C o ~ o ~ ~ c 5 O V C' C ~ 0 5 0 ° ~ on L^ ~ ~ V o ~ o cu N~ ~ • ~ t G O~ y ~ « W A~ ~ . O O~~~ O d~ V E F h . - . O • E C y N C W ~ ~n o U a c ~ ~ '3 E O m F- ~ ~u 'a v o m : v i 5 ~ a > U O ~ ~ U O C o ° ~ Z z . '° ~ d o W v~ o m '~ . C ® e b ® ® C ~ V ~ C w•oa¢Q .5 ... ® o ® • e o o e :.~ e Ni w '' ° O > ~ m m en °' en.E .~ 9 4' a w = W U R1 .L'r Op 00 :j ° 3 o c m oq ~ ~. p . ~ E a o c m a E one: ~ N ° ~ m c N m o ~- 'o ._ 'O C C V ° N h U v 'O • 6~. CqW ~ O'O N ~~ ev °4 C Do 0 ti C O .o°_o E S d z O ,L~ U d ' d d w- ~i?t E 0 '1U C O O •~ ~ C GJ ~ O ~ p ~ •.:O ~ ~\ L •C y 7 v L ~ a .0.. ~ •~ ~ C E O .~ o d E O o ti N E 0. ~ a U ~ ~ O v ~ U A> ~ o A m E . . L ~;A . E oA o ~ ~,~ E .D t ~ G C .G ~ ~ G C ~ C d. .~ Y p A Cl NL ,. L d a !~ c o~ o- ° o.5 0~~ o f o ~ o E ~ ~ . UQ Uqv Ua V D o UU Uv~ Ua w .. ° N W ~ G 0 T O •G N w+ ~ UJ C a> N ~ N O~ v W N y N 3 A .~ ~ .a o U ` r 0 N C m a m ° r p 0 m•p ~ U N a E a i .a y~ N 3 ~` w o N s ?~ c t° ' ~ o o `+•~ ' L' w d E v x m .o ~ ~ O ;? o . > 'n O L c °~ « L o 'E o v ~; . m¢ ~ E a v v ~ v a v ~ L fi a o m s w °' " o u c .. a ~ N E w ~ 4- v w O ~ a F o N W 'O .5 G 4~ A }>+~ d ~ C E U L° C et L ~ A N ~ O G O C~ a.+ ~ a~ •T+ ^ ~` F N °' o > c N G N , d . a0 :: °J ~ ° y 6. p~ 3 0'.. ~ U ~. m a os E U m=U'oU : :.,- ~«c`o~~ '"o Lo °'~,. G ~ o«.~~~o$ C.L.O o a3.5 _ma is.S d« m A oo O V '~-~WOw e0A c •~ ' ' m c ~ ~or 4«v« . ~": w E Neu qc'^ m m o v° « s o A •5. € v a~ E : °~ ° o o°« ' a a~ >. c w sa.oco . _ m .. ~ O ... N •a ~. $N ~. m N ~ ~ = y m . w 0.C O O Lp ~'~,.u0o"' O ~ Rt L7 N ~ 5 0 ~ o~ m y ° L o o :. O ~ s y•m ~ . ~ ov « ~ « ~ v m L U DD er ~~ d . R. Q'N C C O m m .c o m O G.O Wp N eA L m n s> ~ C U p w `eb ~ °' o o o y U N E o m U ~ °' p , OA a m m^ 5 . ' . . '° ~ C L ~ ~ c u~ '~ A O • -- a« c N m v 5 .o o v c A ~ C .a ¢ b Q . ^ La o o°° ~- A ..a O L o L 5 m ~ a~ '~ ..• • s o N E E .b ."~ n. m~ •o Q c 3 O N •~ : v „ . ~ a'0 ~~ • ~ ~ . ~^w m o • ~ a > a a'o~ E c W s> >•^ v ~ s g D m cs L~ m °' ~ 3 ~ ~ A « E . ~ ` c ~ c 'E « ~ °' E m m « w ~'O 3 ~ y m a o , a y' c 'O v > E ~ o p p N ~ w E L L a o ep _ y ~ O N U E • p E N N -~ ~° ~ p,, i ~ a i c C N E %' ep to C . w O ~O„ A ep :.~ w n ~O «.5 ~ v E ~ v ., E 4' v eu m ~ ... > ~ s cab •- o N w n, L a c w . y o m o~~ o L s nu ^ .o so .9 ro~ d^ .°'. ~ o . ab d m •O :a . v o wo °' v A °' v .5 ^ Q o v . a m ro m v ~ c o w o- L w 0 e+ o ~+ 3 w°O m a~ v s a c °~ o n o F w« o o`h ~ ~ ^ a. . d E u~ ~c U o ~., ° o- > O o y •y • y O .. .. s C O y N A d> ~ v 5 U j a .C C ~ +' E W 'D itl N N «. U 4: ? ~ ~: N C~ v . C ~ a 3 0 ~ E ". L ~' ~ O O a v `~ ~ s aw ~ O ~ L A a U a E •0 0 N •O Rt u E U N O ~^ c ~.c t° ~ N A s. a v> 0 « o ° w ' v v . ' ~,, y' ~ a i ` ' '¢ oU m > •o ^ y v _ v o w s o « ~' v ~ H 3 j ° ° Q ^ v " c°i y ~` ,.,v O °L' L m U o ° °^ , m c, o «> E E c o ° O N •p ~ N yO L` V1 ~ y ~ « O ~ ~ U ; ~ O ~+ ~ 4 UU ~ O . , y° O U ~ U - O d ! ~ ''~"' " ' U ~ ' ~ E« O y ' v P O ' O '~^ O A^ : - y 0 N 0.« N y lC O L • ~ j Op a O O W d 0 . O L W A A ~ O O v L b L D V R A = 0. y -, . r . F O . P . . r ] i t 3 (7 ¢ V ;< 7 Q 1 N b :; t o M M M M ~~ r+ G ~+n ~ G ~ ~ ~' y 67 ~ ~ C d 5 ~ E A y ^' ` ' w o w o m o ' ` o O o ~ 3 . a . ~ ,; ~ ~ ~ m U L~ m I m o ' d o s c ~o c o c ~ N•" ~o ~ , •o NJ' v 0 . n. L 0 ou au 6: ' ' . • ^ ~ , E E o E ~ o .` ~ ~~ a~ oa ~~ 4 Q d "o C b d V S v s o ~ h O U L1 C U y eC:. ae ° p • L O ~ 3 '~ 3 3 ° V ~ .° U ~ 4J ,.O d d _.~ N N Cp •C ~ N @ N N 'O m •O C ~• ~ L G O O L Q L O L w 0 w 0 w 0 W ~ 4 ~ 4 y' 4 N iC U U Y L •_ O N C U y ..~ N ~ C O A y m U G N '° w i E O ate.. N O .D .~ ~ ~ N pro' Q ^ 4: '^ O L N N f]. F N .~ Cq G ~ ~ v~j !0 id iC . p E ~- m c ~ ~ « L"o ~ $. ~ 5 r,1." ~ '.c-° '~ ,E itl C y .. ° ~' y °' Y' '°J' ° 'O 4 ' ~ ~ U U ~~ O T C y y L "~ •--~ •i -' ~_ 000 m (~ > A U C ;. + 6 fn U O ° ' ° N .E t' Z ~ •p m .O 'C 00 ~ W s O N ~ y> m L .~ E ° h `.-~ °°= U • ~ i c a m Y ._. c m m y n • y~ a~' ~ .E y ° a o ~'c i y Q xb ,, ~ L T C U ° . O m ~ m~ V« d w . '3 da. y E O ° o a C L v t 0 .. 6J] ttl 0 ,. y C ..N., .J' 0.'O ZS ~~ C O v w bD y y m b v ~-' U N 0 ' ` Y 0~ O. v L v vl > E O •O 'O ti° E o i c c E N a E v O T (~ .° 4. vi N y °~ a` vi ~d O ~ x c C ° ~ ~ } O ° ~ ~ O L C .C ~. ¢ ~ C h0 t~ F ~ ~ N m OA A to p O •C N O L j ~ ° A 3 . 0 ~ Y O Z ~ d ' 'p O '~ C Q ' t0 W b C O O . N ~ ' "' y ^ ~ en y yp S~ O Oq y O G^ b~.C ~ oq '~ U W O W .p c C C U ~ T ~ O Yn :C O w p• ~ b0 7 L L y s .+ . ~ d y 0~ c+1 H ~ .C 4 0 ?~ O i 'O C ~ a > E a70 ~ A C •O G..0. O ' N N C U b DD y 0 " CC U w 4 4 N °• C N O X E " O H ypy U Y C ~ ~ y S' b pp U ~ V 400 N U E ~. w O oN.~o.E ~"" C . 1. O '~ G one aEz~v.'" Rf O C C vm¢ .~~~ d~ C a p 04°> . m C 0 =~"'`°°' :. ~ l,-L. '~ ~ N4 ~ au C G O " L o UV iU ~ D w ~'C~. > °~ v° .N. •~ -- •iy •« .~ • •~ A N> N . . ~ C h C O~ U O O ' m L~ .C y C ~ ~ ry 3 « G L~ ~ y Q• A O '<; ^ Q O O on m m c L' w 4 .. ° v m ~ ° _ c '~ "' '- '° T m E u '' c°, is Y .c ~°~ c 'o U o y ~s°, E .'6 ~.._,,, ~ m ~ ~ .E E Es°, ~ >,= c °c 3 0 6L 'o o wo°L' o r d•~ EE 'b ° ° 3 O L U /~ ~ O O '~ y o d ~ . C o, i ,s .a d U T G .m y ° y 'fl ~"' c w m o Q ~ d V v 0 '~ :C U y fn ' E :: en w 40., m :: 3 0 •= o a E °^ ° 'O~° o v ' ~ o •= ° m 4 v 0 4 a ac~~ ~ . . m ~3 E 0. ~¢ =au . N V ,.y p ~ MI N1 L w ° _ °' ymE ., w ~ U 4r ~ .D U E ~ ~ o y L F. y ~ ~ o a ^ m•^ '. O din a L ~' 0. 0 C 3 m 4~ ° °°c E ; v ° 0°~,=j C L • o oA-E L . °~in ~y . ci a`oa° . a`.mc`-. aw b O N O C 0 a M d c ~s v s 0 a U ~~ ~ U o N $ 3 ~ 3 O 3 ~, p U .3 •O ~ U ~ 7 0. C 00 0. ~ C m W . W O • . O _ ~ '00 000'0 ~ O ~ N N N O cU ¢ . Ov O W O Q~ . W O W O V O U A~ O U O U ~ ~ L L" "~ ' ~ 4 ~ 4 o ~o J ~a ~o ~o z Q V O °a Y x ~b ~ ~s p o ~ O 3 C ~ .$ 3> c ~ m ~° Q m O C n O y«~ "' n U Rt w0 'D .C. C « z m O y, ...0 n/ vi E N O •O m N t0 ~ '0 N«~ ~ O d W yC^. .ES C Q u ~ a, :° ~~ c'°O-w ~ ~ 3 ov•O o o ~ri~ °' ~~« O .~ N U 3 .~? N~ ~ C .O y .: 0... U C m m m~ a> O •~ y~ « T N«ti~ L O.~ y~ N ~ U~ UV"~~`~ .O W G y O G m w .~ ~ P. '"' m •~ 'O C m C f-t. ^~~ O G ." 0 V 0 .yttl,. O O' ,, o•E O o• d~'v~ s a m c .. E ,.., OO a d c a. ~ p~p N U v G t~V 7 0. tCC N .~ 000 N p ~~ W ,p0 U •O Y= n m •..O ~ A d C y~ Vr L' ''~ 0 0 t~ O '_' p w N' ~' C E ~.. N N .0 C U O O. O C t^ U C¢ O 0. •N 00.. ~ O y C a1 N is c `d ~ 4 •. °' n 0. 0 3 CL10 v A 'E a0.• d > qq3 p. c~ E~~~ v w m c~ 7 a o Pte. 3 .. °..° o c°~ d c c o s •.. ~ ~ y n~ a~i v O O •\Op U v U T« V ~ C O~~ ,O C W T O ~ C 0 O.y ._. U ~ ~ a a o at 6 w n o, .n •v n. a~ m ~o m«~ Q M w O N 0 O ~_ C ~ E V~ ~ b U Gn ~ y O ~ C y '.. a > O v A O m O U_ m a. 00 s g 3 a o m m ~. C ~•~ p ~ N N a` 50 w a w- ~~.. !~~!` O m s m •t^~ o o y ~ y '~ 'L N RG~; tO ~ Cf •O E ` ti C tti O~ c~J G E C N N 'O wr' U ~ c+i '~~ C N LO? O.R~0. a0i yw° ~'OO.Es pogo ~ 0.o`b«~ w =~~Waa@~w e43Y~ a v c .~ aEi O F ~ o u~ ~ Q~ `° b 3 0 y e~ C 00'O a C •p C O « CO. DD ~^^« p N~ •m ~" O N E~ O N Q 4 y ~ N S'. > 4 C` O 'O O .O m s °fl ~ °• •3 a N ~-° s '~ o~ .A v m C C C Y Y w m «_ w :~ N yCC v p o w w ~ u":^ C ._ U O p p m G 3 a 0 G O p 0~ y m L z ~'rn O w y 2 0 C y 0« ~ E °' ~> i '~ ~ o ti c~~ v ;; O °' « n~ Ra C ~N" t0 C~ ti W W C N a e`no ma.s C] cE o ~«« A« a x w O N N N W ~ C EO W C'O U O ^' y .n ~ O v~ O U .. ^ ~.~ a=' ° 3 c a« o m E `N` a. E ~~ O 'O ro ~ ~ y ri m <<`-. n. w ;~ sG o~ ~. n ~o `u d O S n 'o 0 i ~ `t U d = d; d a,' e 0 U 4 w O w o v 0 •O ~ ~ A d ~ G O v Q A d ~ ~ Q d .~ ~ ` C .Y O1 ~' C O w3 ~ O 03 1~ p 'p p V a ~~ ~ Ua Ua ~tl 'O >` O m No .o V .5~~, :°. m T y' ~U .~ m L F' t C • D O C~ C O ~ ~ h p ~" ~ N O 0^ Q~ O ' ~ d .~y ~ C Q u N ~ t~ V O O C O C .. . y U . ~tU G .~ CC N G VJ A C C F l~ w, .fl . y m O 'C C O U a1 O i U W •~ N id •-Ui• iy o ^ E 2~ ~ ^ a~ ya.'. ~ .° „~ C a U e d c ~ ~ O T ° ' v ° U .J U O O O y ~ ~: w -° m ~~.. E .. m ° `o ° ., C .. 3 y y a;; ^ U a ' m C y 5 o ^ O U v a ~ o~ y a y e o~ ~n y m . N C u ~. .+ ~ y C ~ ~ ~. a~ N 'd a ~ H ~3 m ~ ~ ~.5 ~«.°'p '. '~ ~ o ~ m c 3 'S ~ s ~ . oDC ~ U C ~G~ T ~` bOA V•o~ 7 U y p C~COY•O O C O.nrn na.5 . ~' N U m0~ 3r . G ~ N ~ ~ f7 M ~ a ,,;,,;; ~ c 5 ~ ~ ` .`:'et m e b ' C E G ~ C O . a C . O p • O ~ U dl U m O ~ a • tj ' O ~ C C ~ C C Z O ° O v s~ oa ~` 0 o' •o 4 a "m V Q C1 r 5 O U ~_ Q V d `dt;d - ,~' fa J E 0 U C w O w • '-' O n v c ro ° ~ m Ca Q E d y . ~ X NY `~ i. ~ C O ~. O ~3 03 d O P O,U ~i ~F ~~ U a. U a c ^~ :: O aJ itl • m ti N N O ~ N >~ y u y N d N . ~~ ~ ~ O ~' N ~' C C • ~~~ y E d N t m F ~4 A m G • A 3 U . ~ 3 O ^~ o ~C ';: w d ~ ~ '` o F o . m w y c m .~ u F .n A m ea o s o f ~ '3 ~ " ~ o~ w .~ $ d o A~ p m y u °? b ~ m u c o ~ U ~~ ~ u U r C A b E m ~ d ~ N C G ~~ ti ~ C ~~ m '~ v : ~ .. m • u O ` m•O •O 3 j •~w• O - ~ n ww ' ~ ~ m" a . i O,~ a 6 .n v A•y c F + ' u y m ~ C b 4 ~ m .m ~ °'.. A c .~ .9. , o y ~ ~ n.._ o. :~. . :C U C E •~ a i en ~ Y O ., C C F O O N N N € U ' , ° m v E v ~ a. ~ n E o • ., ~ " •° n " ° a. d v °~ ' c o N E C •. d, ~ s m;o b . o o v 1C.. C C u n• E c 3 ~ m u a i ~, ,°° °' ~° :..u C C C O 6~ i0 E 0. U y .Y •= N F b ~ .E y U• y N C ~ . ` E N O' y C O .F.. O O, T •'~ E v^ V w U F ~ ~~ C C O ~ . 'O^ . ~: m G N y~ CO w~~ O p C m y N O~ y y~ t C O A U y y . .O' ~ N ~ N~ y m L E m G O .F.. U C G y ~ N~ ~ A" w O .W v .~ a E c~ m~ • o 0~ ~• ° 'o o c c o 9 E a, 3 0 ^ € • ° s • „ :• o o .. ,n w o u c c v 3 ~ m N ~~ ~~ °f m :: a• m o u c n .-. o a u u `° ~ :° > .ty ° ° ` ~ o u ,~ •y u n. ~ c y o o m ' ` " E ~ ' A ~ E K ' o, ° o ~ oo m y c •° . n ~ E ~ v v ~ m '' o m ` ~' t° ~ " o ~ ~" " o ~ c s ..T. ~ o ' a o u . c A ~ r . o ' n N 5 v . N •a c :: ° m • N ... u ~ ~ e .o v E ^ :n ~ ~ ^ y ~ m > ~ • ~o m c c c w :0 0 m ' ,. O C pp N C ~ V U r U _ _ 1n ~ • ~ d N~ O. U U U ~ m ~"' b ;:. O b0 OU •-~ O~ ~ , ~ O m O ~ C N O N C .~ A C U w •_ - d w •_ T u E g r •+ . ?. . ° ,c 3 0 `v o L Q a 3 x Q y Q 1,°'. y Q o v .°' 'y Q °' , Q •v E n F a . , . . i~ G ` `b w o o v . b A e ® ® ® ® ® ® e ' ~`. .. k : ti _ 2 M < s y nY Y y O O > ~ N y cui o~ 5b: ~« m 'o o m s m a`h'~ C: N' 9 .y O A •~ C • ~ ., [ . : o o q t F ~ .o v d ~,._ ~ m a ° °• 1% y ': o ao E on w^ •o C U N oD O " C O 101. C U O C ` P. o A 4+ •.o O •O m a° oy° 4 0 c m ~o C ~i e Vs m ~ o `C 5 O i ~ C U 00 c L ~ U C E ~ N U ~ ~ v .E ~? m U w U w 'U W O ou O on O C G 'D m 'O C b C ^y 'D •p ~ ~ C 00 C ~ ~ U pCp •C (Y1 ~ OUL ~„~ N d ~ ~ ^ •N N ~ ~ l\ td N O OCO A Q ~"' n, y O oCp ~ Q~ A y O W w ' >~ _ O U U° UO v.°, VO U° y y 61 p ~ oU0 y :O y N ltl C C" O 7~ p 0 U .~ O q' L Vl V V ~> C ~ O y ~y/.O m ~ m m 'o E~ E C O U W a> U 0 v a>i 0 4°.~~ U O~ M « L v W u _0. C O; ~ UN Q ~ W !0 W y V 0 .~., « y O N U w ~. n,,.. °°.a. end-, 4 W C a v U «v rn oA> v. m ;o .o w ~ 3 W ;? .o ~ C v 'O .01. ~ Ct. C 4 3 ~ ° m o tH ~'y ~ p. ~ N of « U'O ` Up ~ O P O O.U C U y m rU,) N .~ ~ •U ~.y W C « U ,Up p O ~ ~ O N ~ C C _ (~ O ~ ~ c `o .o .U C C U ~ ~ .« ; '~ 'D 'O N ~ "" y N ~ 7 ' 7 .O W w .. C7 07 C d. ~' W pv N T to tr ~ c ~., .. A ~ w N C .".. O 0 ~ t H a. a U U ~ . ~ O C Z+ C m o~-° E.° 4 .a .a 0.i N .~ ~ N « W+ ;d y O~ d 0" O C O u~ ~..) .C O T C C V N > N b U 'O 'O c0 O U yy U« m c 0 C 'y ~ ~ W td ^ ~ ~ A i U_ U U C O C .lJ ~ N ~ OJ m m~ s E c v v ~ 6~ N~' U N Q > U o. o ~~ ~ v « « ~ o..t°c v 5 ~ v o m k 3 m~~ L.. ttl N Y N (.L~ U b v 4--ii Ci U f0~ ~ ..~ «dr ~Y a H 0 ~« o u. N; .0. ~ Y .C C D\ O« U O O w ~~ CM ie V 54- v E C N i~m~ 7= U` T 0 0 y ~' ~ O O ~« ~v'^ aUi ~U~ noync «'O a>i E O~ d G C «,~ v r0 W .Q 'y M~ V 0 O~ •p ~ .C '~ ~ M U .C ~ 'O C ~~ U O C T ~ ..0. O O ~ U Q. 9 4 Q tit S [~ C C vi .~. m •". w o w° 5 N N U!' b C 0 ~ CO .0 0. C O C U `o_ ~-° ~ U a`..o m ~ _ U C o w "' C C U K O .CO d;"^ A O O w 0 L C~ +_. > m m .E m .N O~ .~ V s~ O C U 0\ U V O N y N C Ci C~ M «•^~ p C N p >0O~~ bCYU'O '~ ~ .C 'O ~ A aw-. L y p 'O r1 L N y m Q d'O U ~ Kt .U. U N •U N{Q O O 'Q N 01 ~" ^O 'O N N aa.,~Er+o.~c 0 .'0003 ~~ W O O k+ •U E O .M O .n w eo,o .^ C ~ 3 E N m Eck: .o m U :: y w E'O 3 c ~ > m w`'N ~'d «'~ W to > `-~ .'C., .=. ..U~ O C O 000 i« U C _~. b m ~ N ,0. C N ~ « m s_ ~ O U w q o~ o~ o y .~ m m G v o ~ ' ~ > C C ~ « ' G y w U. 'O U C O W U N ,~ U ~ ~-' b ~ y «""1 ~ ~' oU0 O C C ..a ~ N •~ G •~ N O~ ~ p~ d w n. :° aQ aII m aU ~«U G Q~ •". w o w ~ N _N "~ C pp ~ ~CW .~ Q' C O C U o•-°~V '~ 'E a ~ P. .o m re ao o '~ O b C C 00 i 0 d 0 U O C d ~ Us d Z O ~ h O ev d ~~ ~- Q,, E <o U ro ' ~ [ ... ° ~ V W 'V W + ~' .C. PA C 4 = v bD q ~ L C v aA O a o>1 c0 C O ~, o " . c E L E ° L 'v c ~o g ~ m E° ~ E° 'ate 'D ' 'Ev 'o • 0 p, o~ y o y W ~ E W ~ ~ v c ai ' ~ ai 'a m c A v A C ~ c m m .n ° ~~ A L y r v N L c~ ~ y m ° m ° v m ° m ° ' m o •~ o° o ~ o° . ° ~ ~o mob vca ~Q~ ~o ~ ° ~o 'v ° U ~ c ~: •~, ~. v«so o• Ta ~ ' ~ ~ s ~ v~ ° m~ i'` " "_'O'°«. °J.. ° ai ' ~« en 0.y c o ` A a C° ° w ` ti c v~ a o .~ •N N ~ C Q N - , ~ °° ~ 0 0. 'o ti-. x L c `°' w m O« ^ 2 en c 3 m~ m U g C m o m E " ° o . ~ U Q Q ry , 7.« A N N ° m 0~ C'O N~ E 2'O '~~ U~ A ~ O O y y Y N U L U« d L U G U [ ~i O a. N .O O C •O lO y ~. U C_ O~ O m O w= ti F itl ° O "' U_ C L Y E 9° ~~ ° N4.1 E C C ~ A .D m y O C0 ' 'y ~2 m av m E v s O .. L°~ .C L ._ ~ .• .°. N «, o •a o w b m~ m yL m a~ m. v Y 'x .n « ~> E .~ « U ' v a-~ Q ~.'~ ~° ° ~ $ Q c o ° •a ~- ' o v =' N ~ E 0G° E `° s ° E 0. O ..+ ~ U N v °' v ~ L 'O ~ o r `• , ~~ . C N O'.T O L G.. ° '.: Z' C U ' '. L .S ° , O~ ` O F « N O Y a~ N C O .~ tC y rj~ N G N O N« V N T E~ ~ U ~ V y 4 . ~. . Q. .~ ~ v L O y C G G G w 4 Q ° .i ¢ 4 0 ~ E t a .C ~ c C .0 „ O •- ~~ G "°'^ o .E o N N y y c o v ., S :y > ~ O N N c . y v d td Y •O O m, 'C o: . . ~~ ° d n F A~ Q .~ Q ° A ' ° '~ w m « o ° . ^ o . ., m~ A 5 n ~ ~ v a ° ° °' ' m' O m ~ o v v m ° •° 'y ~ v C ~~~ Q A 4 . . ~ a m ^ c o N U . U N N° N. c m m A ~' v E .a? N ;i m of ~ U N ' N v a ~ , Q N a 0 O A O 7 C ~ tC « y O ~ W C ~. C ~ 0 ° C=~« 0 0..O m ~ ~ ~> E C ~ U S U U 'O 0. 0 p "" C « C y N y '~' N i m « . Op -i EU~O«• ~ av v y ° yE j r vm_a ~N°cYc a°'i N ~ ° ~~~r°' 0 °v~ L °°c-E E ° ~ , , 2 a t ' m« O ~s d~ or ro mo U ~•~ E ~ W 'C N L on ea ~ C y m ~ ~ N • -N O y 0 s mQ C L m C b ~.e ~ 4.. L O " m ~°, o N E q W C L °Fw ' N O' A ~ N . NO~ ~ , V.. °y VU ° OG ~ wti _ 'O N y OC Cw U_ tC 3 W O y .~ G L ° y ° ' H N ttl 0 tlL t .Y~+ 0 0 N N' « 3 'N y n'.S O ' "" ~ b ° >, vi ~ m ° t° w . ~' ° ... •v -._ a o • .a c .=: a ~ w o ;~ ~~ s E w o m ° ` E > v .E° C ro a Cq •~ •n G o v _c .N°, °~ .a ~~ F o y d~ ~" ~ °~ U ~~ c? i ~ v a O° ° v E ;`: 'C ' ~ C C C N C• N C O ~0 ,C E .~- O N C b O` C tC N a) N W N« 'O OD V] ~p N G N ~ C N N 7 N N N 'D ~ O C ^ C. C O ._ 'O U U . . y O ry i p s bll N C W .O 'O N C L O . ~ y V+ N C 3 L . N F^ (~ Y ; 3 y itl . .: ~ L y C^° C .C T O C O > ~ O ~'. N= 4 L c°i 3 9 N C m a ~ c m C m~ y a U . ~ ° o .G « °' ~y • « t a o .N L ' o v .". `° E m 3 c e'.• 'o O v 3 ^ ° c~ ai r^y ( C ° E a> 3 v Y « F oC. ° ° ~ O b ` p o '. .C ° N C +' O A t U o ~ •> v 7 O C S ~ o ~ « 'p ° ~ C ) •= C E •y o « C N `° ° $ ° ° ° « g 5 p O a. 'O ° =° c ~' « ~ o • ~ r . s . ~ U ~ ~ , ~. ~•, -~ ° ° . . . a v .L. v `v o z v m ~ v aCi v .L°l. .4 p m E `~ • o ~ ~ ~ p ~ s . ~ y c' o .-°_ .~ ~ •~ '°' y .: a i ax mw°«.~ aU °.tia m~ o ~. a` a 5 c°>V mQ q a a o o E cv w na°l « o'm y '" . . . iri o~ no a r o o0 a ; v r1 t 7 M t 7 i, ~ ~~ rr G ++ ~ G ~~ rr G 00 G Op is E •O ~ C ^ O 4~. C N L N ~-' U ''G ° p O ° ° ° O C • Er m w e ro ~' ~ E o m N L~ a ' N d .D ... ._ 'O Y 4. C O C t v i N ° C~ H a N 0 € O O .D G O ~ 1 y C C N LO '~ '° a o. rim a` ~ a a` ~ °_' ;~ a^ o~ >~ 4 M d $ `m V S G Y ¢U E O C A C G C C U ~' ~ C mw . E ~U E _ ~' ° ° roa c m Q = c~ ~ aCiQ ~ a O o„ m k- O ~ [] N O ° ~ m C d .~' U G ~'` N t='J ~ U~w UC]a0 ,~ R U U U oD O CO C O M O '~ C 'O ~ E C b G O c U U m~ pG^ ° y m A~ Gn ° ° ou Q v m a i O Gcn Q~ m y O Gcn ~~ Q° m a0i c O w t0 O ~- w ~y O N w ltf O •- w •!n O N w ftl O •- a a w ~N O w ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ L U O V° U O U° U O U °' : `-° c ~ U ~ w ro k d O 00 C ~ O T y ~ ~ aU. L O .o~a~EE~ C, •O O °' N P. m y .xU. O `o wy ~ .~' d Eo 0 c ~ E ~ U ~ y d C C~ '~ N .4 O C v O y w° y ~ C eUy~o~ ~ °~ y •E U ~ ,~ 7 N iy E N>.~ °s.E y °' o°v°261 c~ A. ~ v ~ E o ~° - c L ~ o m H GnmQ-o. m E rLn w h U y W^ ~O L ° °.., ._ ° m •= OJ y Q. N Cr L ~ O ''~ 4 ~" > A O A U ~ C U N« O •y N O w ~ H L U ~ '~ y L w o ~' x 5 o m > ° ~ E v H [~^ 4 O ~,~ ro vCroi ,~ ~ ° o'D m °-' c ~ .. ria`oE2n.n.w o; a ni m :~? c ~ U b O O ,sw ° m U Q y C` A -°i b0 ~... U U C ~ C d A ~ ~ "U, 0.v o y ~ ° o a~ _ v w~ ~_ ~~ o y w° ^' Y ° d o •N U ~ O ~ w C. U a ~ ~ ~ ' ° ° ~ E 'D O N o Y .o ~ ~ ,O W .ro O .~ y y A G N 7 E y ~ y ,o ° ~° 9 Y ,c °- d ~ R'~ a E . ra onm~•o.c ° G°ud C y w y U y L `^ O ~ .b ~ o ~~^ ° .. v y 3 a ~ ~, ~ ~ L U N tL-. ° o ~" ° m ~ .mc m 3 v" c °m°oF-" y° y U r w ~. ~Ev y ,~w° L ^~ ~ ro ~ ro _ m ° o ~. ^' 0 O .'9 w t N N O 0 ~ 00 ~ C a~~o' Y,= a•rot .. ~ E C w y~ « G'w y C ~ C G O OSC.~ ro .U U ~ ~ q U U ry a ~ ~ a.m C :O O Q. E v n r n. .N > ,E v `o m °'G p,mv 0 E H {¢.. U ~ G '~ GJ y LL >p UJ p C ,= ~ ~. ° ' n. ;: ~ c ~ U v a ?? 4r .0 H ~ U A 4:n C O 4" .C m r ° v v `' °' O ~' m N .~ w a` c `o E n ~ .:~ '~ o ~ U c n. w- c L C ~:. 0 °o O N a a` A C y U y y .~' .2 [~- m a c '~ ~ a m U d ro ~ .U+ ~O ~ ° U N O O N ~> U U y U >'O ~~Erom~~~8?0~:. .NN. ^'v aci G y u .o ''m ~ ~ o ot`- G E ro~ ro m °=~ d.. A ^ w ¢~ . ~ ` ° w o 3 U. GOO ~ Q ~ U C4 b° y> ~ U ~ y = .. T ~ c _ s W 3 O y C r ~ t ro= 0 ~,. v .: E w ° v ro: ~^ O. w ~•, y L>-` Q U w ro O y I U y ° am V W c ~v,w^ °~ ro GO s U w v •O V U C a.° c ~ ~ a d ~° .°. ~ v f`~dd. ~ o~~ E '~ o 'o ~ H c Q c a ro v- YO C\.. ~ y~ O y y '.+ pOq G •° m 3~~ p v v v •~ E ~` a`. G`uogaU ° m n ~ W U w pp ~ O C C U N :~ ~ U S o •~ o -- ~ ~ O w n . O 'C U ~ Z N ° ~ O U ,~ l" C W C ~ O~ O .C U in ~. GO Yn ~ ~. Gq ~ F d C GO = ro w e w^ E • C m o.:0 3 ° o ° o per, o m F vi . . r N ~'O ~. N ~'O L-1 GC ~, C GO • ° ~ m C v c am a`m cz. . i aG`awn.t N d •" ~-0 Op O p y4 b0 Z O O ~O U .~ 0 Y^~,~ d' C7 = [ ~ o ~ s ¢`U d ~'; d ae ~r:= o E ~ E •O ~ G C G G O «. C A .C 'C C O .: C C .G C° .. / N E~ E r U ~ ~ -~ E ~ c ° U~ a o L o o E m v o w° ~ U ~ o U ~ o t° E ~.+ s U ~ o c. ' ~ « U ~ o i° p c ~ L° ~ A .. ~ A ~ c ~ ~ `~° A ` ° v n ° °' A o Q E O c, ou O a oL u- E ¢ a O Q, m v. Q a O E wi ~- ~ y 0 ~ p O .G N WO O . CE Q~ q D O .C E pOp W ° ""' O .E N O Y A i+!1 .. > > Y' ~ 1+' N N ~ +. tO ~ ~ ~y C Lam' ~ ~ LT y ~p CN '~ ~' d N ~` > G N U A U A a L , V A a 0 U A w U A a 0 U V L1 w U L a 0 `. a o G ~ w y ~ .. b >, v ° '~ o rn" ^° .c°J- c "°° x ~` o . ° o ~ ~ .O ° ~ W u `N ~ C ~' ~ A M O b~ D ~' Oy O ('~ T ` ~ W ttl b y ~ ~ y . E ~ N ° .C ~ N ° m E °' y • U y . d o°°.,E .G i a • o,°'o• m a~wy ok ° m 3m d W U L C W~ ~ C C " O O C ° . :: .n = N td .0 'O •> .: ~ ~ O y W 0 6 O ~ Li. L a A ',~ C w¢ N 6 S .~ V U N i . ' O 0. OOp N ° o A E 9 N~ > O C ~ N Y 0 , i.., , , N ttl N i ° •0 '' ~ C C ^. ° ~ vi '~ a C U a r . n E ~'-~ ° w U m ... '0 > C [ O ~ U C y K N 2 W W O O •~ A O C j . U p N ~ ~ ~ ^ w ~ y ~ 0 ~ • ' .G ' d N O p ~ ° y en Q, o o `° v n m =' €.3 .0 . ~ onW c a.`9 c " c. ~, y c c ,,., a i.,, .9~ m ° ~ ~ o ~ 'm c ,° c y w° .°' ~ a a>i c:ti c ~ c ' ~ ~ .. C~y~w ~'v ecns .~ ° °~y"~w :.'Uv c~:.O=.w'~uo c . c•~Eoo~3°J A :. ~ ;o m o v° 7 aA u :° m^ r ° ~ , r m o N •o o •° m . m ._ °^ n '« n va `O y m3 ~ ~v' o a v~ v q a Y m~> m ° . ,o ~, >, c c c ^._.o c ° . ^ ° am ° i . a . a i a i~•.~,°, ^ L nn~ os >^ c,._ E o`u r • ~ = - . , v , , 9~ aa~.n ^..... w. " ° w v . °.v U a y ~ m '~ °~ ~ w ' a on .:: ~ ~ aci ~ . a N o ~ ° o A , ~ N m •~ '0 a~ 5 ~ m w a s N A y ~ a A ° m c ~` aAi Lm v °> ~ ~ A ~ /.. W y ° .' i. O . E W' N y ~ ~ ~ G •~ ~"" a N d O F+ C C C ~ •Y m pq W "' C G .`1 C O N o , E ~ a L° . O a ~ C L .i ° ~ n. w •~ c U _° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ _ n « o a c ~ ~° c •o ` s w L ° " ~ b ~ . O O C ~ O "' WO r_ ~,,, O A a , 'O O ~ O ~ .~. N ~ ° .... ~ N E ' ~ ° ~ W '^ > „O O a • m v ° m ,$ v ~e ° m a`p °~ f+, .. a n c w . . '° C .~ u ~= i aC^~ ° ro U v ~. tca b a C N A ^ td ~. ~ W va •E ¢ O ._.+ ~ O •O m C ° o C V a~ y0 u^ •t ~ 4~ W~ ~ y U : ^ .. o w v •`-° ' N v o ° '~ = a'. m ° a ." ~ °a m c .N. n ~ °' '" m N m .^~. ~ `o a v L- m° ~` N v •0 m ._ ,,., o ° c ^ c - 'o ~, a c ~° c ~^ ~ C C DtC D .~ ~«' C y Y~ F C C O y N a~ ~~. •L7 N N~ A w l ° w 3 '~ _° Q O 'O ~p ~ N , _ ",_„ L O Ty N b - L> [y t- N N 4-. N E >. N W C U, .• N S T N G ao N d W W> A E °' . E_ n ~ E • ° ... ° mO ° ~ o ~.o o m.° m m v ~ °n c °' ~ c ' 1'` c r ~ v o"m ~ v o o ` o • Z' w ~ . ~ U o ° ~ m' Q o ~ Q o •°- ~ ~ Q 'o U ~ ° ' ~ .o ~ ~ ° ° . ~ UC • E U. . ' par rm"'~ '.. ° m w .'~ y m a OG~ '4. 3 ._ U p, OO,vO p,~W 00~ O - ~NN •;, •~ o m= o f= o ~ d~ .`~ v N E .k ° n ~ ' ~, ~ ..) OC 'C 3 m ^~ ?° v w a m ow m a. 0 3 a~ . a t:. avu. a° r Nw F?:wta.^ n. or~A o.v o `i ~..~ .: f`I .. • f`I n ~•.i .'. s .i "" .~. ~ .r ..i ..n .a e~i Ni rj eri w O y ~ ~ ~ d v S ~ C E ~ .O. ° O C ~..~ ° O C W 7 N °~ > o N 'O ~ b iC ~. 3] N 'F. ~ ~L 'N ~p d~ Ct N a A N a m m n9 3 ~ N a S C i.. N ov:o N o~ot C m._ $b N ~ N ow N N R1 M Q ^ ~ m O ti 4 4' O ~0 K a .a 4 d V m o e y o QU v dd A ;E 0 U L c ' °_ E E C N ~w N d q .Eq c° cc Ec ~~ E E A w w L. . c 0. L O~ m 0.. O ~+ m G. O« ~ O E ~` aCi E L aCi O. • ~ Q .y . t° Q ° ;p o g. E QE Oaoa c v a i ¢E4 c v m ¢EO .:a o ~ o v ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ° 4 UL1 UGa a1 UOn°. ULI n°. •o c U s •o t m ~, ~ e .° o ~ '.'~.'• s . c m E ~ n ' ° ~ ° 3 c ti en e ~'~ o Cq m~ ~ .~ y b .~ ;o o v w .~ v . o c° A c • o m° o s w m ~ E ~` c n .E ~ d c Y v •0 3 = c ` c ` ~ ~ E ~ ~ •°^ ~ °' ~ U °"' = 7 c • . o a w ~ E ° n ° c ow~ -- fa E•° 3 `os'ti ~, ~ ~ " .w °',~r ^ ° o a cv A ~ o E ~ • ` v •~ m ~ " m c°i ~'" m °°.c c E A N Y G ~ o .`°. c O w o . °' ro :: w c p ~ ° ~ ~ O. O N ~ G G y w p 'D ~ ` .. 4 ttl C G > .~ J ' O ,~ Q C •_ .E ^ '~ o, O O O . _ 0 w v itl U U A N C U O c 'C ~~ C C ^. ,. C O E D C C LQ C V d O i y _ " ~ F a .. ~ . N. tC y p O 'U• 3 N T R ~ . ~~ V n .' m a'C-. P.'O G E E L C m ~ 0 . . .+ C U .E 4 , l O C .+ . U N «O La O.'c., .°U ''~ C. C O m L 0 O~ . ~ . . O ~ O G ' O ~ ~ d OC O t • a i td N ~ N v ° >~ ~ N ~ k ~ m O O . " .S :o W ~ ~ mv .~ o E~3. o .o n,~ ti + O O m CO b E ~ c~• •~~ c.E ou«•~ y a y ^ . a . N A ~ P U ^ OO w ttl •~;, .C G := T'O N A ~ 0.°i ~ •~ ~ C C ~ ~ T'O a ~yQO>'o^^.°`-°v•Ey'e°nE ^m~ a'°'a°E'm~.~a~d~oc~o,~ °' " .". en.~'..' ° a ~ o E ,~.:'. E 9 ' ' ' ' ~ v ° ti m m .°. "'» a. ° ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ v m ~ ~ . ~ a eo N ;; m w E ~ n .5 ^ s ~, u...c ~ a ^~ ou .n -o ~' ' ° .c c _ .d¢ y¢ °D ~ a ~ E e w ~ ~ °J :B'Dw " ~'E E ~?¢~s n . W o • O d o tCtl O m O y 0 .y ~ Lr3. d ^..w , p p •E .A. p a O N C~ w d A i 0 W. ` u .1OC 6 U 30.E ° '~ ~ °.~' v w w .i°c d m v^ 'c ....o ~` `~ o c c y w m m v ° am' c > :7 a N 'a~ m° v :.' o ., U^ q c'. o y E c~ ~ v m U L ~ U y E m . :: a i '~. m : ~ ~ 7 N y C> •~+ T ~. y. y Q 0 N~ R. ~. ~.: b O b C N U W N .^`. N ~. .; = o c :°. .°'. m N 0. v ~ v O c °' ~ .~'. y °~' ~=«« ~ w v o 0 0~ o °' `o c J lG T.N. O~ N¢ O O'er.. N ` ~~> .~+ .N ^ T d 0 d d d N N > C • a>i o o c ~ 'c w °- ~ v ~ 5. - m ~~ ~ ~° `°' A a ~ v E .~ a>i E a>i fIN, v o . ~o ' ~~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ °~ 'K ~ v °' " ~~ ~ ~' ° oEo •E UU."~° m~ C 3 = R m m c ~ 3 ~: o °~ 'a xpp r m ° ~~ ~ 0 a -. Y a ° ' c o. c °: ao Ll. w^zmmLlmN n a owU . ~ °~ c ,o y . ~ 3~ 3 n 3 a, a aa, m. vm oU OYon ¢ , $ .. ~ • .. .. ;: ~ N + N ~ ' ti .r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~' ~~i+ G V] ~r G t Y w`- w V ~,`-. c d Y ° w ° ° o c o E u ~ ~. 6. .on w :4~ N 0..n ~ ~~ s~ ~v 00 yC 0 ti C O ~0 G d O a` v 'c ~ S U c v e o `~ y 0 U ~U C a' h d ~' O Q E L L L L QOr ~.%w ~ V 'C C p C ~ d ~` E w y d w O w O m w m Aw E ~U ~ A ._ V O uU V ~ ~:C v U O O. ~` d U g o d C . _ 0. ~ CO. v •O = Y m.~ > U DD U a m0. C C v O Q C C t F ., ~ p O O p, ou 4. C Q E v O E m Q °G m O °' m O~ ~ O~'GE' OOq O~ C p~ C ~ p~ C p~ C ~ O > ~ CA ` L ~ ~ q .~ ~ ~ ..~ T ~ .DNO ~ ~ h~ UQ0. QaO V Uqv UQ o ~1 UQ1p7 UQ'C O L y ~ E d .O .E ~ E'C., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C ~ m A ~ ° ~ epOQ .r- p a «~ ^ d o y O N ? G" ~ Ct1 JJ a ~ ~ $o ~ 3 y U Cq C, U¢ ..C. U O A N 'O N U U tE 'D^Ai V 6. .~.. 'C+ m T ~C U .O U N y 'O ti~ .O 'O C LM C ~ > '« 'O L L R! U A ~ U DL C E E a O a~ ~ vi E O O m N J7 N O 6 C m~~ m ~~ A V 1° ~ 64Q-~ 6. ¢ O y t ~ ~ D O ~ U y V~ ~ y N N~ ^ U^ Ofl U A N 3 Q a'G.. u V jj N U U .~ ^ U td G > > ._ O N .t. C E m p°q'« v O v 5 w, o CU C L O Y P. U Vr O V. y~ N A~ N N v w A m x~ p- °~ m U ~ °1 6. O O pU .L, .~ p U C O fO N C O Z O'O Q ~ U y .~ = y 'y ~ V 'O w U 'O a. 3~~ U °~ o Q A ~ ~ L: is ~, C is N OD O Y y y w A 3 v eOp ~ O.._ ~ O 0 .~.. y vi _~ O ~.N+~~..s. 'Ua ° ~ N N y C N 4 QJ p A uF- y A 3.,,¢ A ~ U'fl L N A 4 `U' ° 'y a a ~ U ~~ ~ U C d O O+ °' p m A o y L '~ a.C+ ...i a ` N .C Q y'C.+ O .~~ Gw'~ ~« p Q O L w bA u~ m GW .t. C O y'O W p o`h ~~ ~ ~ v o o> ~ ~ o~ W _ m w L C A A O C .O uuLU,,o_, coo p m~ " ~'o O~ O ._. N° E O M O ~ q O ~ .CO > G a y0_, p G p G V~ 0. N A y a• U N U y N N L' N N W [y qC ~ a a~ s a 0~ ~ E u~~ ~ vi W a~i O Cp ~ w N d y PN C y v N d p'O 0.0 d c~~~o ~ U ~m G~ p d U tV U N L i m a V [v n. m Q ° ¢Ei ? F .n T pp C XL S N - ~' cFN y R1 4J iC 6 `U, ~y >. w° m A~~ G m y ?. L y N y y [" 4=. Y~ A y 4~i N E .~ Y~ U V 'O C A N v ~ N 'O ~ aWi N ° O U ~ ~' .0. Q ~ ~ w- O•-Ci.~? v ~ .y, v m a o '- _ m s y o 3 o O°, E a, V vi y o a N bL N v U U U C y C u N -p ~ Uy ~ L C w p„ .N > .N .~ ~ Y p,a ~ cv•3 c as d o- E v G O° N ~ w. d y v ' CO^^Dyp OQ'O~ V ttl A G m p d A Cq-C L O.B y y U y CSC ~ N•^b•~ ~Q 0°D N O .Y .~, y y N U ,d ~ C 'O C U V ..~ O A V E~ o^~a.Ea N N •: ... ~M G R N wti ..r ~NI ~Gr G m w O m > N N U U 4r G N c E ` 4: ~ w y J 0 W ro b:. ~ ~ v w w s r~ w N~ ° _ K ~ 3 °' ° L 3 " , ~ . N N . v . . _ .+ ~ N N ~~ O~ O V ti C E a '_ 3 '° c • a L .° A a ~ N m o ~ Q C c y Q C v..{' v vi C m` C ' 'L bA. 0 0 L. A L U L C ~'~ m C 0 a cum v w mw a~.- 0~.~.E V E d O 4, C v S e ~ o Q 5 0 U y~+ ~ U' v > C7r, y W ;^ ae >o V G C ,. .L o 0 0 0 0 `o E •E o • ~o. m m N m ~ C C ~ > U ° U ~ U o ° U o o U Y U _+ w o 4 p. 4 v O u . _ 4 U p V 4 V p p, O ++ •0 m ° ° ~ o o E ° o _...a s a ~c . ' a . Sa ^ ', -, a mn . '~ U E C ~U •y F~ C C .. C y G C O t C C C ~; ro L C O ~ o w E L v O~ v C ~ w E E E C E Q ¢ L C O E " d O N ° N C C y ~ O 1 ' C O X v C v w p~ C ~ v p~ C ~ ., O w ~, O p O O ~ Cq A Cp N Oq R Cq A o m v ~~<. Vla t UL] v ULl •o Uq v ULIv UC]~n UC].4 Uq0 L •~ o U E. 'O .=O X a~i A L 'O 00 W U O A ~.., a> R U 4 .~` L> ` m .y R N ~ y T U C .D ,. N ' p U 7 ~ , ^ 'O ~ ~' •~ N L • U~ y ;d G R O s ed N N .E L . _. R 0 N . -C N L« . m .O d y y O U b O U O C U p .. . 0~ : R L.r L °•w p ~-.. itl F W O N o s y r a • . ~ R N N 4 bq +-. w° >s ~; c c yv ~;,v c a ~•o N RE ~ E W ^ : ~ U Rt itl a. d ~ .. _ N .a Y Rf i d vi .~ « >` DL .-p. ~ ~ V •~« i' . : s U .p $ F w p, ~ CJ E ~. y L y O ••• s y U C ~ U ~ O 'DO C q C 'O ~- t+ '~ C U ~ Q OA U O '- ~ p N ~ vi ~ E .._+ U E ~y ~ N C N 00 ~ • c0 y .~+ : A ~ W G ~ ~, ' = p o '~ ~ o ~~ y o n o N D m ~ > o E ~ w ° E o e n o .~ . y p R .~ '0 . o, n ~ 0 e C ' m E 'O 4 U vi •O .~U, C O ~ N p Y .~ C N 4 O R b C O ~ 'O 4 .~ ~ O d C 0 U C N • C ~'-' .d U O ~ ' C O m C ' ._ °~ U .~ OR N R M N ~ ~ := m U > •; ~ .O y,. O U ' C O ~. s o ~ a_ v ~o m° m d o o R a m v w^ ~ o V ~+ a ~ ' W ' 'v o c ~ .3 •5 c ~ •E b `N' v m t ° m °'. a~ ~ y ~' « ' > ~ v . ° E s w '.... 3 y c s :ti m a~ a~ ,~ ,., E m'o ~ ~ ,io w W ~'.' ~ ° o G O >- 3 F y o ~ vi ~ U m «~ G N U ~' R .i. Sa w? G ~.. O 9 N. w CO: an d O R.O N _ a O G E U .O Q W ` ' "' ~. O >~ E N O N " c A W i s O . ~ W .~. U L . m C N :~ O w p {>+,' W O" O itl ~ O H N m O Wp 'j N ~ L U O~ 'v p, v U O C d C .G O c i C , L p p C N C W d ~ O C N~ ~ = N N 0.U G N N O rn v ~. i N L s° a~ « p Y m ~ .o ~ y o ._ a~ ~ °' U o ~ co y cUi v a Lm K ~ ~ a ti o b ~ .E a•°i :'_ ~ aUi wL-. ~ aUi m ~ ~ a •o y •o'.° '~` fC o . y o c v c 'o " ~ E ~ A ° L h s } « v E o o °- ' c w c ~ « « v `d ~ v c ^ ' E « > q w v , E ~+ s ~ ... am o m ,c .a E E ~ .Q o ~ .a m ~ L ° S ~ ° S ~ 5 ` ° ` ° ~ °' f~ o c 'C 3 . . n . c a; o . . ~ m o g v ~ •°-' n, ' 'E :a > p A a _ o c d ' o. m ~ > °' o °. m °' ~ 0 3 m " E N w R o 4 o . Q my cvv N L .~ 4sU °:v L 5 a o¢^ a'v'Fs•~ a E a` oa0 m A H1 mil . ~ {1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N • ..n i N N N f~~ W I M ..i t+j p j rr ~ C. ~ ~ ~ + G s 0- L ~ C O :p W i y J .. n w ° E o w^ w w p a v w o w 0 n U C R N U~ U i E ~ ~ w- E C ~ ~ ro ~ _ ~ v y U a.n a` m ~ cia c4~ b O p ~y ~o 0 0 w 0 C v c S a o C 5 0 U ~+ ~U ;,, v d,,;, ~ iv r ae 0 U G' 0 0 ., ,'i y. .C •C ° m m v v m t. j.' /n U y V C+ U U v ~ V Q. C a ~ E 6. _ E ~ 'd ~U 'm mU . c A c n ° ¢E pE ¢E O`E , ~d ~ ~ ° m v ° m ° ~ v : CG ~'` m ~' d w ~' a ~. d .?. U^ UC]O UO U00 ~ U .O L .4 U N LT N ~ ~ vi N ~ ~ p C 0. e ~ ~ w . ~ ° A i° ~« `o v~ a A m y o m , , y A N O ~' vi U« V Ab o b` ' C 0 u0 v v • ' • ' N 'O y O !U b- y C U 'O y O O y C y N , U N ° ~e c o • ° y m o a c ~' c ° N:a ~ a c • ~° o e Nb E~ ° ~ ~ °.o ~ E ~ ~ °, c m ~. ~ .n ~ •C a '~ ~ c A .o ~ 'C w o z 'm ~0 6 N¢ ' 3 y~ N ~i d. C A O CO O ~y C w ,C b 00 i C E A .... N ~ ' O +-' C N U 4 itl C O d N U' y: U 0. ~ y O _ y 4. G U v~ y b m _ ti 4=. ~' U~ a~i m w_" .t° ;i N 4:. vi m ~ ,C y ~ R N W y^ m O 00. ~ O~ :O E ~s m ~.o v .~ .. E m,L gas ^~w° °' ,~.~„.; w .. 0 6 A o o N N ,.. 3. k ~r ~ ww ~ G C+ .s, CO is CO m ~^ ~-' C ca C O ~' '^ c ~: 'o c ~ m cu ' '~ iC G O •p G '~ v ^ N C O 'O G 'E iF.• .~ ~ . .. w- ~ w ~'E ['! ° u N T~ ° u N T~ y .: w'O iCL C ' VN~ C ~ t: ~ c A o w ~ ^ ~ .o ~. ~ C ~ U ~ ~ " C d1 U ~ . pp R1 {~ N L ~ C 'O ~C y' 1.. pp lO E CJ B C 'O ~C ~' , ,. C a> 6. 0.N N C . 6. 4 cCa N C ~; 0 o c 4 C 0 d ~o C d ~ O o Q O v ~ ev ~_ >y V ~ '. '. ° U ° c .°. E ° E r C = a ~'` ~ ~.. ~ .,. q' rJ j a j ~. = . O O w E ~` v P , ~ v 0. . ~, C cCJ ~ U d o Q U U U U ¢ V N O 'vl 0 11 ~ ~ c m ° C G ~ .~ ~ J = C :> O ° ] v ,n ° a i '- a i wE~ QE O c y ._ b0 ¢Eqx A f euv~ Oo ,, , x ~~ ~~' w ~' ~~=•a ~ o UCaa UQO U ' Ugv~a ~ UC]a'a ~ O i •O O L y U d O D\ v ~'E= a v ms 5 °' 'E = E ~° yi 3 AvNi v c°' oU . . u p ~ , .° n'Y 0._c .= W c ~ c ° ays m m .. ~ o•o .., ` O > ems °°~$ ow ~=A ~a ra~s~m v w .~O 3 ~~mv U ~ U n U Y N ~ 'O N O .E O vi C iC d N R1 ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ U ° U ' 4] •• w n. ~ Q,.E ~~ ~ c v v a v~ ~ v ~ itla su.o asY°. ~ c U E v .ai 'o '~ d~ m N y« O v .~ w y c c w° ° O. v c m W 'E : c " C7 ° O al ~ G L W' s ~ °L ' O m W. ' m C O p, c°i .~ C O 'O ~ m i t U ~ Coo . , N y L ~ O ' L v Ci ~. G N .". w 3 ^' m o °• w^ y s ,.c ~` y .°'. = ° v -`~ ~ a y v ° ~ ~ . Y °° " a ~ A O ~ m c°v a L+i ~ v a ~ ~' V~ •o E~ U O O U - y v v' ' ^ •° C~ ~ s p N E F. ~ r 0 E~ L w C 0~ s y b m T . Y ' O . . > i° .-. O 0 ' ~ vi m W w a, a rte. 3 ~ d '~ ~ ' t N ° ~ ~ ro N E ,t_ m m s U ' s v ~ i w °' °° '. O •> ~ y L U i ~ y C O C C y E rJ W a l V r U ro ~ N O h 0 O N ~ ° O O d p D. m ~ N y C O A C O w U m^ L O A ~- •' C O '-' O U U ^ p a) 0~ w « N =°° • : y ,° C G C ° ~ ' • A s ~ .' aJ . c > v m ~ E ~ . C ° o ~" ° ° b o. c y • m w m > U ° .. o . _ 3 v ~ a ~ i , . a E O y~ ~~^ C .~ O ~ O C 3 E~ , , O^ C= A L ~ O~~~ ~. O~~ p 5sNt°w° o v «... why 0. _mYsY .. -,m~- ..a~un. . :: N .. .w y N N Ni r r.+ .r ~ .n .w i~ t+j M eh F : ~ O '~ m n..E y S ~ = L d '~:.d W N N ~ O E O C U Y ..~ ~ ° @ U~ ~ U Y b _ ~, • :~ ~ 0 ~€ ~@ = ~ ,. -. N aJ y u d 'y C • N N N O. . - to QJ y O. m •. 0- oD .O .~ ° G C ° h op O C J O O G C , -'~ v O 7 O G 6.~L '~. 0.9 VU1 N 4L ~ ;~ C '~ ~ C C 0 r U N ^~ ~~ ~__ ~ C O ~ O U y1 ~ U' ;a 'c o a C~ C - bA ~ ~` u O i. O 3 m w °:"a c ~ ~ = ° 5 ~= l-. m d ~ .E 5 8 ~ p .n U m ' a' ~ ~ a G ~ 5 c ¢ U° 0 • Q 5 ~ G~ L t ,> ~ C Ca t C ~ ° O ¢ ~ 5 ~ E q ° a i ~ w m ° U w ~ ° N •- w o .5 ~ ° d c [0 "-' r ° N ~ c v ~ Q o oq Qwa A [d N N ~ G y Y O „y d N y O ... ~ O N y y 0o a a'n °0 m d v an o c m ~ w v -Y,, •o o y •~ •a '~ o ~ ~ ~ a ,.? a m °• eta ._ ~' •' o v '.~ ~' •_ c u. r. m«s2w a'^q ~•o v sw °y' w amv'•.= a~Q u mk','oy.cc;? c3 mwn~ ~ ~'d v °E~y °a.oa ~~ y w o w v a,_ci ~° ai ~ .°. ~ w n 5 m o :: L `,,° m .E ~` E w i Op O O w '^ a [~i C S w '~ ^ C~ .+ r N Na O d ~ N ._ _ «..~:o m e o 3 ai•~, pw cw o•$ q V `9 m c m. ti ', U oa c ~ v c°i c .ti 'S C Z`•v ° a m C ~y °' ° 5 ~ ¢s, « aL ~a_ a~~+r,o5 a'-5 so n.'a° o,o• a c a. ~ " "-' c ~ `o ~ m ~ c .] a~i v _ « c on- U ~ o on ~,. 3 c v m c ^ ~ ~ v .?~ °, a~ •v ~ :o ~a •c., ~ ~ m v :o •m q 5 a°Di : j U ~ .% .° o.'c 6 c .E '°° ~ 5 ~ O `° •° R,'~ H A a°'i ~ ~ Z.•5 ~ ~ o ~ ~~ m w .`"c ? o mz., .N, ~ ~ ~ 5 0 .Ly. m ~ d ~ .C~ ~ ` ~ ~ 07 .~ •y ~ ~ :~ «N. y N `'-~ a ~p 'C v ° ''^' N m ~ u. "a.~ °L' w .a EJ S .0 w •_ y myJ N Y N~ •COO k+ " ~ cTC L '^ O .5 0O L •" c N ~y W ~ ~` C U y O .O N 4 E. w a'O .~ y~ OU W a aO• Qa y~„i a N '~ ~ a~ w a~ O N ~' y w~ ,_L, 0 0 ~ 5 «~ 5 0- p,~w Z' o ov ~+:._... ~ o-O o:° o-_ o~ c. U> A y i= °~ ^$~ s U s °o U j 'y .~ •A S N ^~ .C « >`'a m ^~ m G d tCd ~ U U .S •'7 C y V m u C N ~'. yy y U y ..•..O c U y N W L rOn y a0i yam.. [i y y ~ m m w y ~ ~~ rs.> 5y ~ v G~ aLi 3 ~Cl G. N ~ N T~ W .~ C v Off.. d A~ O O O a. ~p .yy. C~ i~ O 'O y p G v> y O, cd G s o ~ ° n., ~ .°'. °' i U ~ .o c o 3 ~ o ~°- m = ~~ v__m .^ a•Oi w ~ v az v r a .' >,'° '~ .o n, w v .a ~ o Q, c .a a~i ~ ~ v C v m m Y v~ 0 5 c A ~ - m ° o ° aci ~ ~ ~ .° ° ~ c•.-°-3 ; :° o a v o °' c ~"' o e ayi ~ •'°o .5 o c c ° n,. o: o. ~ ~ v ~ o. nL. o '~ E ° r ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 3 .°'c k 3 ~°.~ s 5 z ~`' 3 n ,.°. 5 ~I ~ I ~ ri I ri Ki a ~ ~ y V 4 U V ~ y t .. " ' V U ~ •' L au W .5 ~- eu ~ W 5 '~- L ab ° ~- L eb ° Q w 9 ~ ' . ~ 4 . . S ~ L ..5 O O y O ar 2/ • O u 'i7 • O u 'O • N m € •5 ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ •~ A ° ~ E '~ ~ ~ y N •~ y N Vl y N ~ y UJ 'n 41 y pj .: a c ~ _ a ro • ~ y a ry • y a A • O a o ~ ~ o ~ ~ a o ~ •~ o ~ '.~ ~ 0 ~'' Q 5 0 c U N O 4 ~i G v~ ~ b S Q o U ~U d _ W ae U N N ° p .o; 3 ° 3 ° m ' ~ ' 3 3 D. " .V .V ° ~ U U ~ ;: ~ ~ ~ O .p ~ :G 4L 0. ~ m 0. 0. d •E E ~ ~ E • E '^ a ` s ,~ cu'g d ~ v m c ~~ c ~ ~ m ` ° ~ e " ~ E ` O w E w E N :p o c ".' o~ s o U o~ o~ a ~~ ~~ ~•~ ~~ ~.~ m U ^° U ° m N . O ~ U y N N Op y w •~ C •~ = R ' p y y ... p y C V ,C NO L ~ p U~ ~~ O b O O d W V C ~' a d W ~ p~ R. w y CO , ,. o A~~ ` '~ `' m c c v a s °J w~ ,~ 3 0 .E ~^ O m~~ c ~^ a. u~ O. N y w~ Q i, N E m U O. s .O ~ T L 'p U C y « O O E ... ... ~ `~ U O C 4, ~.. ~ G~ F ~ e « C R d 3 O , " ' C O. ~~ N F p •y ?> G ~ U : ~ U~ oUO ~ d " w m d m qq O. C w O N O C 6 d._. L C U ~' O. o•:O w . C.« O C U E .+ E pp O ~ ~ « U~ O O O O A W E C C ~ M~. ~~ O 00 ~ 4~ W u C L>' G m L E . G bA L>' O. d O« v i w .~ E :d A O ... ~ ttl N 'b ~ ~ ~ ,~ C. U C w ~ O O w O. ~ j ~ .O C ~ „C„ ' ~ .D V c~ a L .^ T N E itl N C ^ - T ° N ~ ~ ^ ^~ Y.. ° C C C ~ N ~ Q .L ~ y ~ y0 ~ •^ C ~:. i'" k.. _' ~ n s ° n « y m y a .y o `v o i' :o « « = o • = d '~' =° c « « • d . ~ . v ~ m m$~~ m m . . ~ m .5 m« n . .. a v ~ a ~ U C N .5 ° `o n o c . ~ N d a ' ~~ w ',~. : y_, N a o Q a s 4 w tq •G E C o a i 4„ O c ~ a-r „ , . ~ :.. ~ . c ... r~ o e ^' .. E c c E >, o ~ y ^~ ., c c^° ~ , °~ w F d '- N ~.., o o ~~ a°1i A m p w N F, o f° p ~ p .~ L ,p '~+ "" « v O N A W U C, « d O O E w O .y A E a.. « U ° .C > w~ ~i U U ~ 4;, p w Q N U U y?? rO U « N p 0~ 6 ow a~- E ° c co1O d o~ ° mw° U~ O ~ 3 5 ~"" O C C Q °= ~> y~ i7 ti r `v $> v :~ v« v s U ~° a~ w s ~ c •a i a °' z c o E o y 0 C. ~ O.. p~ N ~ U N d« y 3 C CJ u~ y O d u O C ° ' = p L ~ . C L t N CO N E '- ' `. r o.~ c m ~ >'E ~ o m oF`. :n d ~ 3 0 o a'c ~', °1 c ~ ~v ~~ ~ ^ ° , • '! ° =~ , ` c ' ° E E = ~ ~ « ° O ~ ° ~ a.°_ ~ ~. p ~ ~ m E,n m ~ ~° .> > o ° ~. ~ v. gb ~ H d 3 3 o am N m m c~= o a"" o.mwr " r O .. °•N« ='^ C °° ,, c° E c O C O v .. ° c c O C R ~- ~ N U ° N~ C N m a` `n G] w Q C] o« ~ y U ••.• O O a ~ m ~' « v C ~, O ~p te o v ° v m • . ~ R y o A w ~ Q ~ o D ° Q i , .. , . o R . w v G . . p . y w ~ ~ `' e , 4- a N N ~ N n N N ' M ~ M ^~/ M ~y ~ M ~ M r ~ ~+ ~+ G ~r G w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ U ^ :O U ^^ •0 U ^ ~ ^ U EI ~~ D ~ C ,n F p G A ~ u p N_ Q. ro N_ a ~ N (Y N y ~ ~ O C R ~ .i O C~ _ O C _ O G ° C O . ~ O~~ ' ~ N O,Db N 09 O,b C O~ ~ . a` .cn .°'. n`..n .°'. ci ~ a` a n .n ~° ~~ oa ~a 0 0 Z V N Q R d C Us d ^ Q e 5 0 U r U' W w W; A o `, ' U [ 0- N C Y 'v N N N N N 4J .. 3.E ~ a ~ .~ O .~ C W .V .V .~ G W C F. Ww W 0.. G E ;? E E E U F" •°' •°' •°' m a ;o. QEc QE QE QE Oar d ° A'O ° m ~ m ~ W ~ m C~qD U~ UL] Uq Uv°' _ m ~ ~"" .-w j N N t ,' ~D = '"' F L O C C ~i 3 N N T O_ v y = y s b . ., N p '° 'O .. •• y y ° ° N vi N m L« C d O L E L U i .E F O N 3 W~ C L U A ry C •O ' U U V E 0 ' m L C 0 ' E Q. c y 'O N° •.C u~ 0. 'O ~+ C- 0 N N O O b m ~ , Y. Q ¢ Q y ~n o _, N i G m Cq °' r. n ° w N ~ 3 ~ •° ~ a ~ ~ ~ o q c > m Es ~ `a.a c d .~ o, , .: E m w m ° a o a ~' > ._ d m c ~ ~~ T - m o° L C U a° m~ N o E_ L d L N >~ F C ~ ' 3 3 • ~O ~ c ° a¢ m Q t: a i L n.e m ~ n.U U 7 fL ° m ~ ° y " a i ° d a y v A ' N : ~ ~ .°'. o a i N « « c m ° o .o ~ L = ~ ,9 m a N 'm m ¢• c : E « . > ° « ~ % E E •- •^~ °' c ,, am o.o~ o ., ~ n .y A ._ d c'«.E ty ` ° > c ' v o 3 ~ > > • . ° ,. N ~ ~ Q Op ` U~ y ...^ a F 'O m N L 0. G ~J w~ .E V 'N C U •y °LR . . s . T7 • C ~ m ^ E .O N N .O C u~ .. E ' ~ ~ , ,. •. L N '^ V~ '° C '^ C Q ~ ^~^~ w C ~` O; U C ~ E~~~ E °° C y ,~ ~ C a N_ O . ~ ° y N O t in i V L T O W N • . ~+ y O . m W « N A, C , , ,, ~" G: j > L C N~ A °' OD T C ~ W ~ ~ y ~~ L p O. ^ a E b E ~ n E . E E O ~'C •~ N r O O~ m a ' nn i m u cL c .n ~ itl 3 w 3 m •a U m~ .E o. o N° ..~. . moo 'm •~ .E o E a s 'o Ern `o m .° o ._.. ' - u o A ~~ m Y o 7 a :0 9 ~ pq ~ rn s a° ~7 msN E> m v y m^ scm D m c ~ E s~._~ 3m a~ o v d v m ° w wc>.=z5c ~L'Omo . . c a n 'O D O L a Q p " > N m C : i Y C. °~ E~ U ° t a p ~ y . L c i ~ d C¢ ~ ~' Q C T m m 0 .~-~ , T . m m m N m v C m .u. ~ ~ a L ° '^ O N a A S E ° + r ~ ~ C C ~ C. R ~ O O r C ~ N N W ~ co ~ O ~. y m 44: 0 Ri N° E « m . bA N c a O a m E v m '~ E N :~ is 3° c ~,+ ~ N G, C O y 0 m t V 7 ° m ~ m U~ C O. vi .. L •a ~' a E v i ffi . N. .3? C .C a~ .C y 3' y. ~ C 4. E ~ ' ` C > ,.~ ~ N E Q i ~ w N N •~^ O L x ° b - E . y l ~ A y ., L vi ~ N . 0 -3 O O N ~ d ~ ~ w V A L N C O ~ • N~~ W O^ ~ T >~ u ' N' • ti O N •, ~~ C m C ~ L W O G :C ¢ 'b DD N L CO C .° C L D O ~ y N YC ' t tl N° m :^ ~ L y_ C O U w C~ y m m C ° ~ 0 •9 N y ~ ~ ° « U y j N b O C •E ° m N o 'D ° 9 ' m ° '° U L ~• 'u O y ~ tC ~' O ~ rA ~ U ~ d d L .~ ,C k O ~ ,X ~ O G~ V .O _ O G .U .° m om" ~ ~n 'i N q 3 6, Q. E ° O C L a a W 0 aL o h m s iV L o w a 3 u o 3~ t0 • N a c o « ~~ ~ :~ ~ v . a m a m m . a . . m 3 ~ try ~~ N + .. y ' ry M . Ai n 'ry .:i ... .+ .r ','': e~f M t+1 rry ~ a a ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L t0 ~ m U w °~ ` . m L > w - ~ - w -' - O n. c ~,°. ~ w w ° ~_ ~, O 'd C VJ W ° ° E aci C ° ~ v v ,; ~° E ~ ~ a ~ ~ y m b y ~~ .a °~ ~ ~ m °~ ° ~ °'~ u c I. L C D J F L 'O L~ L L N ..n .' n` H ° ~ 3 ri .na w` .an a 3 n. o~n ;~ b ~ ~0 C~r~ O p 0. C O G U o• C S a 'o 0 ~`U O C Q U w ~ O O 4 U 4 w O m W1 rn E v 5 O~ N O O N o `m m a ~ s ~a°:°_my w U •{ o. A •a c ~ o ~ U ~ ,au ro 'm :fl ~~'~i'^.5~U~ X 4 0 '3 0 ~ ,~ m a z~ y 4 C U U U CO O C s _ 0 o.•`c-° m m•5 moo, td N tO E ~„~ 'J' •O A . 4`'^ N U O ~ '~ ~ m ~ c .5 '° L •O y •o A U .~ A ~' N C r rUii ~ y U C ~ y N •o `vim E ~ a. ""J E m 4. N y O U 'fl ~ n. off- v t°•5 ~`•o E =' N p •a.~ a E .m > 3 y nq °^ c 3 v~ O a„ G ~ ,O O ~ ._. ~ - O ~ ~ ~ U N M~~ a ,~ v o s •p o m•o E~ ~ c y ~. 5 :. '~ c :D E m O ,~ FU, N ¢ r ..C. +U. •a.. O S G U m U~ N w a o Q~ 3 .5 y~ U y G ~ s ~ 4=. U 0 0 3 m °' 7 U i O ~ ,,cE nd.. o. `° •., m W 0 o c y o c •-°_ ~ L h .9 U a c.n o d Q A ~ N w '~_' E o ~' c o A•~ ~ y•E 0 U .n O O cV 0.m•_UN o c, .. c m'o ~o~ aim ~NboE ~ 3 c m w t •p m m. w m a'•v E •- v Ga 4 0 ~ ~' O of ro - ~w m mC]w ~-° tt ~ 3 •°_a c o v ~ •5 ,O a o E v ~ ~ `o '~O, N •~ ~a •C G. w`^^ : ~ 4 y A .o mpq•~•o`~?~ o-:~ °' c o c m s ~'v, w V m a c •° ~ .n U y Q.'.^- bL 7 '~ N _or~a~Ey ~ c E,~ o ma. a~`p c U 4 o'O• m E~• ~, a~i s V .. m G. O C t0 ~ .,0. ~~ Z7 y 3 c v ro z. 0Q.5 3 min N ~N1 G w w 0 U C F A C y o. O ~ `o_ .-° n`..nc N x E .n o ~ 3 U ~ ~ U Q ~' ~ Q. C9 i ~y O vS •~ oU0 •~ r x c c `o Q E V ¢3•s o O .U itl ~ O .D C ~ rU. U ac.~ UC] ~: .O O 3 ~ `_ '° O 'O Q •- .D 4 C y 30 °~`~'~_ ~•~ ~3w 4.Y 3~,E o ~ _~ m ~~.Em° I. ~ W .~~~`" ai°. c N A U O A O w y C ODX O L ~ ~ .~ O ~ b ~~3U~ a4i ~ ° s m ~ o. c4 s .D ti ~ m c p^ v'c., m E c a '..1 U O cd .N A o ~¢>rn c o o w Q d .rJ N U O T C O 4 ~ ~ • ~ , ~ •O C G ~ E'O Qr 0 ~ u U] Q .r Q W U C h m 0 m w 0 tl U !-~ ^ ~ y 4 A o ~ ~~ 0 n`..o U y y ~ U ._ ~ _~ 4 w U 4 0 •° o~^ o ~ •0 0 S E A o w C O n ~ h ~ oU0 m ~ N N N p 0 ~] 3°'~E 'S v ~ o c ~ a ~ y N 'O ._~ •E o •E O 4 E o m ~ n. ~ v .5.c°', a m ~. O ~ '.C. iy a .5 3 w E .~ N C N ~0 Op ~ C 0. C` ~0 i O fi 0 d •o a` d G Us ~ ~ o Q s ° Q U' w 0 w w o w w o ,,, ~ o ~ o ~ o U G ~ C U C E z A E r ro E Q aoi ~~ o m q~ o ~ E O Ev~;~ Q Ev~;N O v ~Y CX sY' CX S.`N1' G1y G O a3 v O 03 G O Q a3a ~ O o3 G' O Q ¢30 ~ O 03 o .o o .o o ~~ o ,~ o ~_ m o ,v ~+a ' ~a ° ~~'E ~~ ~~'E ~s va Uc , Uarn Ua Uam Ua' ~ ~.' d Y ~ ~ o ~o~~ As « N ~' .J' ~ C U d .. N W Pr ~ 't7 p C F > U N aJ '~ y bq C U ..U.., C ttl N N P. vi ~ ~ « 0.r ~ V ofl °o a p ~ ^ . C .Y ~ C O ~ ~_' a'C+ ~ .". y Q, U 'E C p, O v (j ~ O L O O .E ~ y U mU a,oiy0. L ~"~ W n. W O °Y+ O~ Q U w C. ~-' .O ~ ~ O C o °'U otnV °,;O O v.'~] vi pUp ~=b c d o~ d O .n p, n 'O ' ~d E V] ^' U OT' U > ~.. V'a ~U o c ~'' n,a~ms~ n". ocG AC~3ni .noa u '~ _'~ °' s y .= a ~ a ~ « a a ouy ~v mY C y m ~ O ~ C U ~ o y " 3 ~' N C a,U U .O e0~ m ~ v Yu 0. n`h 3 '~ v m ~ .of0. C~~ 7 y Y Q .° ~ ~'j9 s o. E ~n m m m rn a ed H N 3 Q' .d G y tCtl N (~~1 •~ N y m ~ [q A o ~ 3 ou « w > ' o ^ c '3 o C] o> v v v U .o 2 m U LO V ~ N •y ~ L S 0 0 0 >. N far 3 0 0 0 L~ m ~ c ~ h y O o -Y,, w ,. o ~~3 vi o }~ v U ~ A ~ O ~ Y Q ~O.U On .O O E E m E '~ C 7 m ~ ~y bA ~ N > CCy 'O U G E O A N A 'J' jy ODm ~CO Q" O ~,c_U•yp c b m y tC y `~ .E y .' ]. C ~ w ~s..gv~ y _ C q O L O O G U ""' ~:. > m~:? > « v a ~ a 0 0 ~ ~ d m .~ a:. m~o~Q m o 3 m _.~ o i ~a, 0 3 3 m b,~ 6 ti N,y ^O C, .E n. w L 0.00. y 3 ~ w ~ o ,D m s ~` ~ w ~ m U y 0 n ti s C E c pp d~ N u N O ~ N ~ 9 L O p ~' N u pq U Cp W t .N y O ' U ° o •°'. E y d V ~ U .E O ~ .O v ^ o U E ~ w v ~ - E O w y° > y m E o ~ o,o U ro b ~ U ~' eu V 'O m t tl ~ o. N O d y. o s s ~D o .E . ~ y ' '3 ~ N L U A U U _ E~ s m a .O ~. x •3 E ~ ' b y v `o ~ w o o: . O v 7 V O o ., ~ y E cU o ~ > U y •~ L U .O p , Y d s-s s s s ~- ~ '°_ , y O ¢ L N y~ {~ m O t- c F r F .n A o. U , ~ N n. 0 00 C O ~ a a M e4 M r•I •. s O .U 3 o c U 'O vi U yNy. , N OII 'J .~ ~ a N o :: ~ ~« 0 O ~ ~ E ._ E 1 'UO ~ ~ 7 r1 M ~~+ G ~w n. o w c ~ eq o:o.o c ~ C >O .OO ~O N ~'u i N K O O C ~'~ C_ U 0 L C .O .~ C. L y a ~Ss'.E ~, a ^, a a C C O 0 C b `N V Q m C 5 ~ U d Nrd A"E .;: o U C N a~ N m _ w w O' w o ~ ~ ~ E _ 6 d! E E Ca cn° o E Q :G ~ ~ m OqY •O W ~ N 0- N N L A~ "_ o C y w E G C w ~ ~a ~3 ~ Q3 OL3 V Q Uq UWU CJa Vc. ~" ~ C C O 6. ~ y t '~ O vi ~. ~ ' w .O 3 0 .'~ N 0. G O O N p O O .._ O 'O ..~ O C ~ O .O U O a O ° O ~ ~ A d ° v . G C~ O y ' C 0 o ~o a•C ov ~ m °'~ '~ .~ ~ ~ 2 a °U ~ O ~"-~ ~ .°+ a u ~>,:E ~ ~ y ~ y n• °.o m ~" ¢ ~c ~ v H m E 6 . a ° o,° ° ° N a y ~ o.~a OwvdE ~ ~y , „ . v . a OOGI.r .+> t w E~d ~N • c ~ 0.LUACA ~ ? aO. O'j L d T t0 O E N . y itl 'O W 'J' N " >' ~ 'O N y v L ~--~ 'C r N U] O 0] w C O 'O v r w '~ 'E N L •~ O M °' ~ '' y N L y O L A V ~ •~ ~ "c o o " ~ °' of m m Q ` X . ~ n m - ~ .~ y co h ~ R v " .ti « ai `'' ~ ° n " 3 € a. n v o ro y o o ~ > G o A o a ~ a ~ ~ E o` ~ ~ ecc ~ o P a' •° ' . . ~ a c o¢ `' E A °' .: o a>i m 3 3 y o n o. c v ° N :; ~ °' c c °' s y c c c E ~ N~ ro v ~O o o° U o a o ~° ~ E"° E U y o m~ •~ i i a i `1°' m E E = n , - ` o .o 'O m ~ a°~i G w : is X01! •o ° •°' `0 ~ .-° 'v o °°> 3 ° .aNi ^ aoi s ~o c ~ ~ •~ . f- • N c , , ° i _ - O L 'O L > C .O iO C .~ L N y i7 N . :~ ~ N Q• ~ O~ r L N ~ 'y v N . . v i N O L~ ~ y~ ~tl U a N Y C O W E C O N ~> a~ W •_ O r ~ . w C ", W ~ a U N N~ N U y N 0 ,T tTtl O^ y 'E L u w 3 'C 1~~ 4L L I \ v~ .O •D ~"' V r7 '~ N^ y D ~~ J 'F~• TCr . 'D " ,n O •D ~•>WA~ a . i O 4+ O °^~ m V ?: N C U a'O .C U G .5'°m~ E > ~' c•° W N N v •=~ N m Ep0" o'v= ~" _ G T E °mv wE` ,C y _? m m c. L ~ L0' N N C •1~ c ~'" U O d N ¢- 0J i d r E ° m ' N td V u 'O °• y w w W ._ s o t Y d o o r w o c E v a c ~ m m o- U O ~' o y^ ~ '° " y' " m .p •m a ~^ aCi ° y E .°' v~ ` o N .. m o v^ t w. v .c ~ m d w m is 3 . ~ .. E E Lo ^°^ .E E= v m `° .a c S ~ L o~ E •`" v g ~~ U ~ m: . C R O.~ •~ v' N G.'L.. ~ U~ v U~ Y~~ ~% y o0'O . r W m •~ y G C _ U. C > N O ~ y ~` O cti ~ • rE 0 ° 3 m `° a m v .E acv •co ~ N _ '~ ° '^ ~d A v ¢ . > '~ o `° ° > U o °-' ° ~ a i s> v A 'E v y °~ ^ °~ c '~ m •r p v~ c m~ o m U .~ a . ~ 1 a~ °' E w ; m ; ° '° « o o ~ .o a"i ~ `c° ~ m ~ O v '° v ~ .~` ~ `° -~ •v °' ~ ~, r ~ ~ o 'a s c a , . •a ' Lm • •b :.~ t ~;b uO• ~aNm°'w °~m:'.°'• m 3 ~ :.mUN ,;. " o c .c ~ > = L 0 ~ w , .°' > R.c o c a= m om N o= ~ o ~ v ° ~ L a o ` ~ ° L v o v x n . 3 . n. a . •c . j •o a c . : 5 d a n. c c¢ w a 0 0 ° ' rn w$ :: ` o o y F ,.....,:... L w in N ; i ~i ~ e ~ :g ~i ri .~ ri .. . k ~ a fM Mj 4 7Cy ~ ^N'~ ~ ~ ~ w^` w^`^` N ,~ w Y,~ O O O O 0 U a+ V i E ~ ~ ' N .. . F! F ~ v ~ L ~ ~ C ~ a a i N a y n. N n . U L'O •O L'D O L p~ ~;O ' f W 0.L.L GL.L 0.~ L ~ P. ~ N b b0 d ~ O C C ~o .y 0 ti C 0 Q 00 d 0 4 fi v ~ m O Q ~n Q ~ V dd - ~, ; a'e 0 U w _,:!n p w • o o m ~ E ~ E K ~ m ° O a°i , E D :a •~ d ~ ~ X y ~ ~ p O ~ O w3 03 ~ p U p U a ~.~ ~..~ ;` Ua°. Ua ,, T m G 4 Y ... ~ .= U fC ~ •~ t0 y~~^.! y "' ~! a"i U p p ~" ' d ,, ir •- •~ ~ ou a ," s p ~ en p N U m O .p .p p p 4 y W N W A U w N ~ ., C i ~ a ~ o ~ 3 n s ' ° ~ p , H a o ~w a ~ a A -W ~ N W r~ r N . ~'". .b O td ~ ~ °1 ° E " o g v G w c'm ~ p o ~ E 4. .~ Q. ~ m o v ~! ti U~~ L W p d p y u LL ~ . . CF. y ? ~ i' ' =i a ~ . ce p °' 5 ~ . c ~ .. , o eb m ms 5 b .J b1J N ~ N Ip..C O F 'O ~ ~' P~ ~S-C~ E j~ v r` . . ii Si k, ~ : ~ k •s V4 ~•. w U V: v .:.:0 p W U i b U , F ~ ~ a y p. m ~ C G v ~p '~ O ~ ... . ` p ~ A. L ~. ~~ o yC 0 C U d .Q C~~ O' ti ~ U s m ~ O ~ h O U ~_ Q U