The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2007/01/22i la in i~si n a Monsiay, January 22 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • Chairman: Gail Eastman • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Kelly Buffa • Commissioners: Stephen Faessel, Cecilia .Flores Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. °, Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues (As requested by Planning Commission) Preliminary Plan Review for items on the January 22, 2007 agenda secretary. • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. • 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: planningcommission(a~anaheim net H:\docslclerical\agendas\(012207).doc (01 /22/07) Page 1 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.BA. 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 Calendar: 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. flflinutes 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2007 (Motion) H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(012207).doc (01/22/07) Page 2 Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00191 Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 425 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 515 feet east of the centerline of East Street. City-initiate request for reclassification from the C-G (General Commercial) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residentiap zone or a less intense zone fora .multiple-family project. Project Planner. (dsee@anaheim.net) Reclassification Resolution No. 3a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 328 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 126 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 3b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17141 Owner: RPG Orange LLC, 9200 East Panorama Circle, Englewood, CO 80112 Agent: Cynthia Eppeldauer, Archstone Communities, One Spectrum Pointe Drive, # 225, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 2150 South State College Boulevard: Property is approximately 20.81 acres located within the cities of Anaheim and Orange, south of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue. This request pertains specifically to the northerly 8.44-acre portion of the project site located within the City of Anaheim, within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District, having a frontage of approximately 625 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and located 770 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Archstone Gateway Residential). Request to establish a 1-lot, 352-unit single family attached residential condominium subdivision within a larger proposed 3-lot, 884-unit single- Project Planner. family, residential subdivision for apreviously-approved multiple-family ppramirez@ananeim.net) project. H:\docs\clericallagendas\(012207).doc (01/22/07) .Page 3 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05165 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-222 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006-00006 Owner: Silver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC, 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Agent: Silver Oak .Development, Warren Williams, Jr., 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 150 North Riverview Drive: Property is approximately 4.3 acres located on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 -Request to construct a 52- foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment and building height in excess of code in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay with waivers of (a) minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to freeway, (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a local street, (c) minimum number of required parking spaces and (d) maximum number pf wall signs. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 - To establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00006 - To remove up to 16 Project Planner. specimen trees. (kwong2@anaheim.net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(012207).doc (01/22/07) Page 4 5a. CEQA fPREVIDUSLY-CERTIFIEDI MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2006-00448 Sc. AMENDMENT N0.8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (SPN2006-00044) Agent: City of Anaheim (City Council), 200 South Anaheim, Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street. City-initiated (City Council) request to amend the General Plan (Case No. GPA2006-00448) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (Case No. SPN2006-00044) to provide the opportunity to develop wholly-residential projects that include rental housing that is affordable to very-low and low-income families on designated properties within The Anaheim Resort. GPA2006-00448 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note No. 2" of "Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial Recreation land use designation description. SPN2006-00044 -Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). Project Planner: (skim@anaheim.net) General Plan Amendment :Resolution No. Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. Adjourn To Monday, February 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM. for Preliminary Plan Review. H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(012207).doc (01 /22/07) Page 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 10:00 a.m. (TIME) January 19. 2007 (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~~ ,L,~l/ ~c~'.~ 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 774-765-5139.. H:\dots\clericallagendas\(012207).doc (01122/07) Page 6 SCHEDULE 2007 February 5 February 21 (Wed) March 5 March 19 April 2 April 16 April 30 May 14 May 30 (Wed) June 11 June 25 July 9 July 23 August 6 August 20 September 5 (Wed) September 17 October 1 October 15 October 29 November 14 (Wed) November 26' December 10 December 24 H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(012207).doc (p~/22/07) Page 7 item No. 2 ADE1.E SZ _., i, t Z~~ CHgO~ K BN cr+~acH ~o A (~ S 04212 T GUP Z00p1 04301 T-GUP P 3513 CUP 3115 GNURGH N N 3 1 G~62 g RG~ 5X52-22 RG~~S. 364V v ~ r 1 NN Mq 10 "pyCV~',52.2< i ~.... B2yn VPK <o~„- GN 52- q ~Gp,F~PAE is y ~ G P gpp0 A O~~ 1, PVP7 5q=0p ~~3 RM.g5-24 PP 98053-9 [a PGN 51.52• s ~ llR 2p02'p4 p05 KG X652-53.9 µG~ 5.52.22 '? (RG`GUP A~0051'V lG GN 2pp2 t 4 DU UGH RG~ 5~ 275 F SUP 1615 1p0~ Zpo2•p45~31 ~ P VPGA~.°- ~ VPR ~~ LGUP ~p,NS k VS DRR ~- N ~ _ -r ~ RM'1 ~ 425 EVE m c ~52.az t N PV E ~ ~ ~ RGVPR 119 ESTPO~N ` GAL 053- 5 n l9'~ Al ~ RG~S~'fi1 VPRV\GE F ``~ R ~~p fi15 b i lion GL 5230 4 ,,.~qq5 5 PION 5' y ~ vn Rt RE Z ~^,~~ V SMP~ES RM.a O yPR ~b /51 Gl5zb9-~6 pA mO~ StORE m OfF ~ R v >g G~ 61949-] ~ °~ ° pVP 949-9 VPR 1949-2 MPN MOTEL in ORS 53.'pU VPR 19492 SNORS SPNO R SMPI FO R52^353d5 /~ T /~ R52~3.~6 Z I////\\V\ /~ ~ ~9~/~ RG~pp CS~ A 1 ,~U EAGn12 - -4~ O N aM , e5 Reclassification No. 2008-00191 Requested By: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue 10213 an O ' Subject Properly Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 93 Date of Aerial Photo: Julv 2005 Reclassifiication No. 2006-00191 Requested By: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue Subject Property Date; January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 93 10213 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 2 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) , 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00191. (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped 4.3-acre property has. a frontage of 425 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,:a maximum depth of 439 feet, and is located 515 feet easfof the centerline. of East Street (1275 - 1287 East Lincoln Avenue- Choc site).;; REQUEST: (2) This is aCity-initiated (Community Development Department) request for approval of a reclassification of this property from the C-G (General Commercial) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone or less intense zone for a future multiple family< residential project: BACKGROUND: , (3) This property is currently developed with vacant commercial buildings, is zoned C-G, and is designated for Medium Density Residential land uses by the Anaheim General Plan. DISCUSSION:. (4) This reclassification. requesfwould be consistenf with the General Plan land use designation and with the Medium Density Residential and multiple-family (RM-4) zoning of the properties to the east. This reclassification would permit the development of an apartment complex by right (subject to compliance with development standards of the RM- 4 zone), orsingle-family attached homes with a conditidnal use permit and tentative tract map. (5) The attached memorandum from the Community Development Department dated January. 16, 2007, indicates a reclassification is being requested to allow the development of a multiple-family residential housing projecfat a density of up to 36 dwelling unitsper acre. Community Development is seeking a developer to build amultiple-family rental housing project, a percentage of which would be designated for "affordable" units. (6) The project site contains parcels identified as a portion of Site No. 31 of the Central. Anaheim Area within the Housing Element with a density range of up to 45 units per acre. Based on this density, the sutiject 4.3-acre site could accommodate a maximum of 193 units. Thus, the proposed reclassification from a commercial to multiple-family residential zone would result in an increase in the City's housing stock and would be consistent with the Housing Element. (7) The requested reclassification would facilitate the replacement of incompatible blighted commercial properties with new residential development in a neighborhood containing. other residential uses. The proposed RM-4 zoning classification for• this property would complement and support the existing and proposed development in the area, the goals and objectives of the Housing Element and the City Council's Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Community Development Department staff would be working closely with a developer on a specific site design and architectural plans which would be presented to the Commission at a later date. SR-RCL2006-00191ds Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (6) Staff has reviewed the ;proposal to reclassify this property from the C-G to the RM-4 zone to allow for the construction of a future multiple family residentia(project. The Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) findsno significant environmental impact. Therefdre; staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be apprbved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the: Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead'agency and that it has considered the proposed 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 receivetl that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: (9) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission; including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commissioh take the following'actions as indicated in the attached Yesblution including the firidings and cohditions contaihed therein: (a) Bymotion, approve a Negative Declaration for the project.:. (b) 'By resolutibn; aoprove Reclassificatioh No: 2006-00191, Page 2 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007--**'* A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION'NO. 2006-00191 BE GRANTED (1275 - 1287 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL L THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY WILLIAM HAMEL, A COPY OF WHICH IS SHOWN IN BOOK 3, PAGES 162 TO 164 INCLUSIVE OF "LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAPS" IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, DISTANT NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST 520.13 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE WITH THE CENTER LINE OF EAST STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO COMET, INC., RECORDED MAY 14, 1954 IN BOOK 2728, PAGE 196 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 74° 3T 25" EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET, 250.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15° 24' 15" WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTER LINE OF EAST STREET, 480.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, RECORDED JUNE 30, 1961 IN BOOK 5770, PAGE 813 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 74° 37' 25" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND OF ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, 250.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND OF COMET, INC.; THENCE SOUTH 15° 24' 15" EAST ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, 480.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT 'FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER .THAT PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY WILLIAM HAMEL, A COPY OF WHICH IS SHOWN IN BOOK 3, PAGES 162 TO 164 INCLUSIVE OF "LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAPS"IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:.. BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST STREET, 66.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGE 22 OF-.RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHERLY 450.00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY; THENCE NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 1060.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4; .THENCE SOUTH 15° 27' 55" EAST ALONG SAID.. EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID CENTER STREET; THENCE NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF CENTER STREET, 24.29 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 24.29 FEET EASTERLY (MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE) FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 15° 2T 55" WEST ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED PARALLEL LINE, 430.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, RECORDED JUNE 30, 1961 IN BOOK 5770, PAGE 813 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 74° 37' 25" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, 1084.89 FEET TO SAID EASTERLY LINE OF EAST STREET; THENCE SOUTH 15° 24' 15" EAST CR\PC2007- -1- PC2007- ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION WITHIN PARCEL 1. PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 OF ANAHEIM .EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY WILLIAM HAMEL ANp FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A COPY OF WHICH IS SHOWN IN BOOK 3 PAGE 163 ET SEQ. ENTITLED "LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAPS" IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET, NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST 770.13 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF EAST STREET, AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST 180.00 FEET ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET; THENCE NORTH 15° 24' 15" WEST 480.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTER LINE OF EAST STREET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, RECORDED JUNE 30, 1961 IN BOOK 5770 PAGE 813 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 74° 37'25" WEST 180.00 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTER LINE OF EAST STREET WHICH PASSES THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 15° 24' 15" EAST 480.00 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND S OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY WILLIAM HAMEL AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A COPY OF WHICH IS SHOWN IN BOOK 3 PAGE 163 ET SEQ. ENTITLED "LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAPS" IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST STREET, 66.00 FEET WIDE, WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND NORTHERLY 450.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CENTER STREET, AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 28 PAGE 22 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 74° 37' 25" EAST 1060.60 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH 15° 2T 55' EAST 400.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CENTER STREET; THENCE NORTH 74° 3T 25" EAST 24.29 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 15° 27' 55" WEST 430.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ZION EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, RECORDED JUNE 30, 1961 IN BOOK 5770 PAGE 813 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 74° 37' 25"WEST 1084.89 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND TO SAID EASTERLY LINE OF EAST STREET; THENCE SOUTH 15° 24' 15" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION WITHIN PARCEL L WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 22, 2007, at 2:30 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 reclassification 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 applicantproposes7eclassification of subject property from the C-G (General Commercial) to the RM-4 (.Multiple-Family Residential) zone or less intense zone. -2- PC2007- 2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Medium Density Residential land uses and the proposed RM-4 (Multiple Family Residential) zone is the appropriate implementation zone for this land use designation. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community because it would result in a residential project that is consistent with the type of housing envisioned for the area 5. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal; 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 and 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby unconditionally approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the C-G (General Commercial) zone and to incorporate said described property into the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which maybe approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice 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 January 22, 2007. 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 3- PC2007- 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 January 22, 2007, 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 , 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2007- ~P11lIM ~i... r ' ~-"z cam,,. '` '~ <. - ~t, }~~ Y s- ^.. ~~~~A'IJED ~y9 Attachment -Item No. 2 pC~ity~~~~~/ggo~,~Igfg~//,~g{{AY TnagygyhTe~iympg~q gg~,~//gg~, gg pryp~~~pq//^~pg~l qpT ~p1 li ®1~Y11Y V ~1 S 8 HJ BJ Y HJ BJ®1 lYYw~~l \ Y To: Planning Commission From: Elisa Stiplcovich, Executive Director cc: David See, Abby Semblautes Date: .January 18, 2007 RE: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00191 1275-1287 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") current owns the approximately 43 acre site located at 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue and is requesting a reclassification. The Agency will be releasing a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals for the construction of an affordable housing project at this site. As the site is currently zoned C-G (General Commercial), a reclassification from C- G to RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) is required for [future] development of an affordable multiple-family housing project. G?ASM"I l I fiA CHOC Sim Rczoniny:000 Item No. O-L (PTMU) RCL 99-00-15 RCL 67-62-09 RCL fib-67-14 RCL 56-57-93 VAR 3462 VAR 3606 VAR 3567 OFFICES PLATNUM TRIANGLE OVERLAY ZONE ® ~ N~ L`1. 111 J 0 m ,~\ W \ (, ~ W ~~ ~ J ` J > V` \~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~ U ~~~ ~~~~` ~ ~I (PTMU) K4L RCL RCL (Res. I (PTMU) RCL 2004-00129 RCL RCL 2004-00129 RCL 99-00-15 --- RCL RCL 99-00-15 1 (PTMU) RCL 66-67-14 CI CI RCL 66-67-14 RCL 56-57-93 VACANT RCL 56-57-93 IND FIRM VACANT IND. " SM I . FIRM ORANGEWOOD AVENUE l 1 eL s6 CL 66 1 (PTMU) RCL 66-6I-14 RCL 56-5]-93 CUP 2571 FA6T F000 REST. I (PTMU) RCL 99-00-15 RCL 66-fi7-14 RCL 62-63-OB RCL 56-57.93 IND. FIRM I (PTMU) RCL99-00-15 RCL 66{7-14 RCL 56.57-83 IND. FIRM I (PTMU) RcL o6aom2s RCL S6S7-93 CUP 2003-04763 ZCA 2003-00025 ORANGE CITY UM/TS (PTMU) 2003-04666 M1 VACANT (SWAP MEET PARKING) 50' 1 RCL 99-00-05 RCL fi667-14 RCL 62-63-09 RCL 56-57-93 CUP 2003-04702 SMALL INO. FIRMS RCL 88-00-15, '.es. of lnt. to SE SMALL IND. FIRMS W ' K 1- Z O a 7 C v PLATINUM TRIANGLE OVERLAY ZONE Tentative Tract Map No. 17141 Requested By: RPG ORANGE LLC 2150 South State College - Archstone Gateway Residential 1DZ1z ` Subject Property Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 119 Date of Aerial Photo: Julv 2005 Tentative Tract Map No. 17141 Requested By: RPG ORANGE I.LC 2150 South State College - Archstone Gateway Residential Subject Property Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 119 fozfz Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 3 3a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO: 328 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO> 126 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) (Motion). 3b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 17144 (Motion). SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This project site consists of approximately 20.8 acres located within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange; sduth of the southeast corner of State College: Boulevard. and Orangewood Avenue: This request pertains specifically to the northerly 8.44-acre portion of the project siteidcated within the Cityof Anaheim, within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District with a frontage of approximately 625 feeton the east side of State College Boulevard; approximately284 feet south of the centerline of State College:Boulevard and a frontage of app~ozimately 50 feet do the south side of Orangewdod Avenue (2150 South State College Boulevard - Archstone Gateway Residential).. REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of a tentative tract map to establish a 1-lot, 352-unit single- family attached residential dbnddminium!subdivision in conjunction witRa previously. approved multiple-family project: BACKGROUND: (3) This property is partially located in the City of Orange and is currently being graded.. The Anaheim portidn is zbned I (PTMU) (Ihdustrial -Platinum Triangle Mized Use Overlay - Gateway District SubAtea B) and is the subject of this request.: The Anaheim General Plan designates this propertyand properties to the north fqr Mixed Use land uses and properties to the east for High'Intensity Office land uses. Property to the south antl west are within the City of Orange. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a) EIR No: 328 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126 - to certify FEIR No: 328 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 126, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2005; and subsequently approvedby the City Council on April 26, 2005. (b) MIS2003-00071 - to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Amendment Nd: 1) td provide for the'Gateway District to have two sub-areas (Sub Area A consisting. of 41.56 acres and Suti Area B consisting of 8.44 acres, was approved. by the Planning. Commission on February23', 2005, and subsequently approved by the City Council on April 26, 2005: TTM 17141 PC012207 SRJR : Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission. January 22, 2007 Item No. 3 (c) ZCA2003-00025- to amend the PTMU Overlay Zone tb establish zoning ands ' development standards fdr 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 No. 2003-04763 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2005, and subsequently,approved py the City Council on April 26, 2005: (d) Conditional Use Permit No: 2003-04763 - to construct amultiple-family residential development in the Gateway District, Sub AreaB; consisting of 352 apartment units with on-site tenant businessahd leisure, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2005, and subsequently approved by the City Council on April 26, 2005: The entitlement for the apartment project did not include a development agreement because this permit process started prior to the requirement for such an agreement. PROPOSAL: (5) The applicant isprbposing a single subdivision map to be processed'concurrehtly by both ` cities: The portion of the map that is thesubject of this request is for Parcel C as depicted. below. Therefore, the Commission's action wilt be limited to this parcel and itsassociated conditions: Specifically, Parcel C contains the 352 dvuelling units originally approved by the Commission and would be part of the larger 3-lot, 884-unitcondominium subdivision proposed for the entire site. Parcels A and B are located within the City of Orange. Na structural'or physical changesare proposed td the development. The'condomihium map will provide the applicaht with the option'of selling the individual units or maintaining the entire project asa'apartment complex. The Platinum Triangle Overlay'zone makes no distinctioh in developmenYstandards between condominiums and apartments 9` ~ _ _ City of :, ~ ~~~ Anaheim if p Parcel C ~s. ~~sr ~~~{, sa{ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .- '~`'-'~ 1 ~ .$~i4i l~ j~ Clty x ~~ ~i ~ ` 9¢ ~ i §' lnyt ~ r, ~ ~ ~"~~~#~~ )Lnllli9 "p NOryAME ~:. ~. ~~` "o NPME ~Q. se Parcels ~ A and B i °•• z a _.. _ u ~. ,~ `~ 119 ~: ~ City of Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ',, January 22, 2007 Item No. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (6) Staff has reviewed the Initial Study and the proposed tentative tract map to determine whether the request would result in ahysignificanf adverse environmental impacts that were not analyzed by previously-certified EIR No. 328 and MMP No. 126. Upon conducting thin analysis, staff has determined that there are no changes to the originally-approved permit that will result in any sighificant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore; staff recommends that the previously-certified EIR No: 328 and MMP. No. 128 serve as the required ehvironmentatdocumentation for this request. EVALUATION: (7) The property is designated for Mixed Use land uses which permits a mix of uses including ~esidentiaf (at a density of up to 100 units per acre}, office and commercial. The proposed 352unitairspace subdivision (density of approximately 47 units per acre for the Anaheim portion of the project) is consistent with the Mixed Use designation and density for the site. The site is located within the Gateway District Sub Area 8 and was originally approved through Conditional Use Permit No: 2003-04763 forthe apartmentcomplex. The current Mixed Use Overlay and Gateway Districfallows single-family attached units as a primary permitted use, therefore additional zoning actions besides this tentative map are not required for this request. Since modifications to the previously-approved exhibits are not. requested, this action is also consistehtwith the prior approval FINDINGS: (8) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to include in all motions approving, orYedommehding approval of a tract map, a specific finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is cohsistent with the City's General Plan. Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the fallowing findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with .applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is not physically suitable far the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.. Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 3 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements; acquired by the public at large, for access throughoruse` ofproperty within the proposed'subdivision." RECOMMENDATION: (9) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting; and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions as indicated in the attached excerpt, including the findings and conditions contained therein: (a) By motion; determine that the previdusly-certified EIR No: 328 and MMP No. 126 are adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. (b) By motion; a rove Tentative Tract Map No. 17141. Page 4 City of Anaheim PL,AIVNIIVG ®Efl~AiZTMEN'T www.anaheim.nel 3a. 3b. acres located within the cities of Anaheim and Orange, south of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue. This request pertains specifically to the northerly 8.44-acre portion of the project site located within the City of Anaheim, within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District, .having a frontage of approximately 625 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and located. 770 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Archstone Gateway Residential). Owner: RPG Orange LLC, 9200 East Panorama Circle, Englewood., CO 80112 Agent: Cynthia Eppeldauer, Archstone Communities, One Spectrum Pointe Drive, # 225, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 2150 South State College Boulevard: Property is approximately 20.81 Request to establish a 1-lot, 352-unit single family attached residential condominium subdivision within a larger proposed 3-lot, 884-unit single-family, residential subdivision for a previously-approved multiple-family project:. ACTION:. Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 1-lot, 352-unit single-family attached residential condominium subdivision and the previously- certified EIR No. 328 and MMP No. 126 and finds there are no changes to the originally- approved permit that will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and determines the previously-certified EIR No. 328 and MMP 126 serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed tentative map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan, and does therefore approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17141, to establish a 1-lot, 352- unit single-family attached residential condominium.. subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final map approval a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map, including regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 2. That prior to final map approval, the legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEL (714)765-5139 submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section approved by the City _ Attorney and City Engineer and then recorded concurrently with. the final tract map. 3. That prior to final map approval, all (a) lots (b) condominium units (c) parcels' (d) buildings shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Street names for any new public or private street (if requested by the developer or required by the City) shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division. 4. That if tenants are occupying the community apartment project prior to final tract map approval, the subdivider shall submit evidence to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division that all requirements of Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, pertaining to condominium conversion, have been met. 5. That prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay the net difference :between the assessment of apartments and condominiums for the traffic and transportation fee, Supplemental Platinum Triangle Project area fee, park in lieu fee, and any other applicable impact or development fee: 6. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: (i) Demonstrate that all structural BMP's described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. (ii) Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMP's described in the Project WQMP. (iii) Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. (iv) Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMP's: 7. That prior to final map approval, the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40). 8. 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. 9. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishmeht of the use or approved development: TTM17141_Excerpt Item No. 4 ®••®•• ®~~ VERSIDE FREEWAY ®°•®,• RI ` • ®•., _.. GG . ~ -~_~~ TPM 2006-222 SPT 2006-00006 ~ ~' RCL]&7&46 SPT 2pp0-0DOp6 ftCL ]7-]%4 P VAR 3002 F ~ CUP 2006-0516 (CUP 3900) ~ 'T-GUP 2p02-04fi60 SCUP 3p57) GUP 2001-04491 AR 3358 T ~~ ) - VACMI ' ~ ~. CUP 2000.04282 T _ __ RCL 78-79-06 RCL 77-7B-fi4 (8) VAR 3539 349' ' Q ~ APARTMENTS 234 UNITS P RVJ 0 -0 ~ O 4 ~ _ ~ ~~ RCL ]0 9-0fi ]8 \ ~J~E c _ _ ~~ T _~~ CUP 2002-045 J~ O -~ ~~ CG j CUP 2692 OFFICE BLGG. ~ 6] P RCL]]- &fi4 (1~ G ( CUP 30]] cuP nzz ~P \\ esp ~~ \\V P GFFlA EBLGG. y '1' 7Y ~~P D~ 0P RM-2 sT GG RCL 78-79-46 RCL 78-79-06 RCL 77-78.64 (3) VAR 3015 RCL 77-70-64(1) y VAR 3195 CUP 2773 1 DU EACH a OFFICE BLDG. OO SS ~ P ~? tc>t' 0 ~~ ~~P ~ 0 g~0 ~ ~ ~ l7 92 RCL 77-78£4 (3 ~ ) 6 ~ ~ RVAR 3195 OPEN SPACE ///~~~ /\ ~~\OC / \ \ ~~~0 (/ ^, ` Q ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 ~ i ~~. ~ Subject Property Tentative Parce l Map No. 200fi-222 Date: January 22, 2007 Specimen Tree Removal No. 2006-00006 Scale: 1" = 250' Q.S. No. 219 Requested By: SILVER OAK ANAHEIM HILLS, LLC 150 North Riverview Drive 1o27a Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 Specimen Tree Removal No. 2006-00006 Requested By: SILVER OAK ANAHEIM HILLS, LLC 150 North Riverview Drive Subject Property Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 250' Q.S. Np. 219 10214 ALL. PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Date of Aerial Photo: „~„ ~ae~ Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Mdtion) 4c. CONDITIONAL IJSE PERMIT NO. 2006-05165 (Resolution): 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-222 (Motion) 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006-00006 (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped, 4.3-acre property is located at the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon;Road and Riverview Drive, having frontages of 852 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canydn Road and 340 feet oh the east side of Riverview Drive (150 North Riverview. Drive). REQUEST. (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 -to constructs 52-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay with waiver of the: folldwing: (a) 'SECTION`N0.1t3.18.090.010'0101 Minimumtandscapeandstructural setback' adlacent tde freeway. 90 feet. structural and 25 feet landscape required; 26 feet structural end 15 - 26 feet landscape proposed). (b) SECTION NO: 18.18.090.010.0103 Minimum landscapesetback adjacent to a local street. 20 feet required; 14 feeE proposed) (c) SECTIONNO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of required oarkina s,.paces 300 required, 281 proposed) (d) 'SECTION NO. 18.18.090.050`.0501 Maximum number of permitted wall signs. C? permitted per business unit. not visible o freeway; 2 proposed per business unit visible to freeway). o Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 - to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00006 - to remove up to i6 specimen trees (15 Pepper trees, 1 Eucalyptus tree) BACKGROUND:' (3) This property is currently uhdevelopedend is zoned C-G (SC) (General Commercial; Scenic Corridor Overlay).. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property and prdpefties to the west for Low-Density Office land uses:. Properties to the south are Srcup2006-05165k1w.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commjssion January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 designated for Low Medium Density Hillside Residential land uses: The Riverside Freeway: (SR-91) is to the north and northeast of the property. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS; (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282 (to permit and construct a 45-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment with waiver of the minimum structural setback. adjacent to a freeway (100 feet required; 28 feet proposed)) was approved by the Planning Commissioh on December 4, 2000 and received two (2) extensions of time h 2002 and 2003. This entitlement subsequently expired on December 4, 2003. A condition of approval requiring the termination of this permit has been added. (b) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00006 (to remove 16 specimen trees) was approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282 on December 4, 2000. This entitlemenfexpired on December 4, 2000. A cohdition of approval requiring the terminatioh of this permit has been added. {c) Variance No. 3882 (waiver of minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway (100 feet required; 40 to 75 feet proposed) and :required site screening to construct a 3- story commercial office building) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 19' 1988. This office building was not constructed ahd a conditional of approval requiring the termination bf thin permit fies tieen added. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (5) The applicant proposes to construcf a 75,000 square foot, 3-story, 52-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment:.The Scenic Corridor Overlay zone allows roof- mounted equipment and building heights in excess of 35 feet by conditional use permit (6) The site plan (Exhibit No:1) indicates the building at the center of the property with the following proposed structural and landscape setbacks: Direction ':. Code Regyired/Proposed Code Required/Proposed 1 _~ ~,: Biiildin`" ~ Setbacks ~ ~ ` . ~ Landsca a Setback North (adjacent to 90 Feet./ 28 Feet - 25 Feet / 18 - 26 Feet RiversideFreewa Southeast (adjacent to 50 Feet / 90 Feet 25 Feet / 27 Feet Santa Ana' Canyon Road Southwest (adjacent 20 Feet / 83 Feet 20 Feet 114 Feet. to Riverview. Drive West (adjacent to 0 Feet / 225 Feet 0 Feet / 5 Feet office buiidin (7) Access to the site is provided via one (1) driveway along Riverview Drive. The site plan indicates a total of 281 parking. spacesprovided for the professional office building. Code requiresa'minimum of 300 parking spaces for the building based do a ratio of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feehof gross floorarea (75 x 4= 300): The applicant has stated Page 2 Entry Elevation (facing,Santa .4na Canyon Road) 3-Dimensional Viear of Proposed Elevation (9) The elevation plan and materials board (Exhibit Nos.`3 and 4) indicate a 52-foot high, 3- story building with a contemporary design. Code permits a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet with additional height permittedby conditional use permit. The exterior building materials consistbf silver and'dark gray painted concrete walls', tintedglass windows with. matte-finished dark silver mullions, and an aluminum awning over the main entrance. The elevation drawings further indicate a variation in waq planes'with a pop out at the center portion of the building with a dark gray'accent; plans do not indicate any proposed light Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 fixtures for the building.. A conditioh of approval has been included requiring decorative wall-mounted and parking iot light fixtures to match the contemporary design bf the building.. (10) ; The roof'and section plans (Exhibit Nose. 5 and 6) .reflect the conceptual location and number of roof-mounted units. Plans indicate there would tYe potentially up to eighteeri (18) HVAC units. As indicated on the section plan, the roof is fully surrounded by a parapet wall and other architectural features completely screened from view from both the eight-of-way. and residents along Santa Ana Canyon Road. The roof section further indicates the parapet would be five (5) to nine (9) feet in height due to variations in the building height. Accdrding to this information, the proposed roof-mounted equipment would be screened from every direction in compliance with Code. (11) , The specimen tree removal plan (Exhitiit No. 7) indicates the removal of 16 specimen trees (1 Eucalyptus and 15 Pepper trees) from the site, with all ofthe affected trees located adjaceht to the Riverside Freeway. The request to remove the specimen trees is necessary to construct thebffice building and parking lot. The specimen tree removal replacement plan'(Exhibit No 8) indicates the following in compliance with code: ~Diarrieter of Tree ~ Nurrrber,of Required Nurriber of Number of j2emoved (4-feet . Reriiobed Trees" ~~ ~RepiacernerffTrees ReptaceirleritTrees ~ahoee ~ ~i'ourtd level ` ~~ Re ' lacemept"Ratio ~ ~ -~ Pro osed "' Under 12 inches:.. 9 18 2:1 18 12 to 20 inches 7 21 3:1 21 Total : 16 39 39 (12) `The specimen tree replacement and landscape plan (Exhibit Nos. 8 and 9) indicates a variety of canopy trees and shrubs surrbunding the office buildingsr Plans propose 12 trees along Riverview Drive,`15 trees along Santa Ana Canyon Road`and 5 trees along the Riverside Freeway: Shrubs and groundcover are;proposed'within the landscape setback in compliance with code. The submitted landscape'plan does: not comply with mihimum code requirements both' along street frontages and parking lot landscaping. The applicant is aware of minimum' code requirements pertaining to landscaping and intends to modify plans to comply with the code. Code requires one (1) tree for every twenty {20) linear feet of street frontage (36 trees on Santa Ana Canyon Road, 17 trees on' Riverview Drive and 52 along the Riverside Freeway). The landscape'planters within the parking area are proposed with trees, shrubs,jand groundcover.' Code requires a minimum of one (1) tree per 2;000 square feet of parking area and/or vehicular acdessways.' Code further requires no morethan ten'(10) parking spaces adjacent to each other' without being separated bya landscape area. `` (13) The site plan and elevationpian (Exhibits No. 1 and 3) indicate the conceptualiocatioh of proposed wall and monument signs for the office tiuiidings Although specific tenants have. not yet been identified, plans propose a total of six (6) wal(signs, with three (3) waif signs on the north (facing the Riverside Freeway) and three (3) signs on the south elevatidh (facing Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive). THe Scenid Corridor Overlay permits a maximum of two (2) wall signs for a unit provided that the wall signs are located on parallel walls on opposite'sides of the building and are not visibleto a freeway. The Code furtherprovides that the letter height shall not exceed 24-inches fora 1 to 3-story building:: The conceptual wall signs require a waiver of maximum number ofpermitted Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 signs visible to a freeway. Plans also indicate a' monument sign located at the corner of Riverview Drive and Santa' Ana Canyon Road, however, details'of the sign were not submitted. The monument sign would be located outside the line-of-sight triangle. Since specific tenant signage has not been identified at this time, staff is recommending a conditioh of approval, requiring the applicant to submit a comprehensive final detailed sign program for the entire office building once the specific sign design and tenant signs have been determined. (14) The submitted fetter of operation indicates the site would be constructed in one phase. The fetter also indicates the proposed uses would consist of professional office uses. Since there are no specific tenants identified for this building, no specific operational information could beprovided. ; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (15) Staff has .reviewed the proposal to construct a 52-foot high office building with roof- mounted equipment and the Initial Study (a copy of which isavailable for review in the "Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impacfand,.therefore,. ` recommehds that a Negative Declaration tie approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative:Declaretion reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and thatit has considered the proposed Negative Declaration. together with any comments received during'the publidreview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the projeotv/ill have a signifioant effect on the environment. EVALUATION: (16) 'Office buildings in excess of 35 feet in height and with roof-mounted equipment are permitted in the C-G (SC) Zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. However, when roof-mounted' equipment is proposed, Code requires that it be demonstrated that the equipment is required to beplaced on the roof by the nature of the. particular use or by Title 15(Buiidings and Housing) and that::: `Such roof-mounted equipmentshall be subject to the following provisions and shall be <; clearly shown on plans submitted for review fo the City of Anaheim.. Submitted plans shall include Line-of--sight drawings from surrounding properties, demonstrating the ? .effectiveness of the proposed method of screening; .01 Screening of equipment shall be provided by acceptable, permanent building materials, the same as or similar to those which are used in the construction of the underlying building, or equipment shall bescreened from view by acceptable architectural features of the building itself. Said screening shall notexceed the height limit and shall not consisfof wood lattice work .02 Permanent; mature landscaping may also be utilized but only it if provides a r complete and sufficient year-round screening. .03 Equipment shall not be visible from any public street public or private property at finished grade level, or any floor level of any residential structure. Page 5 Staff Report to the. Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 .04 c In order to minimize the visibility of screening methods and materials, all equipment sha116epainted to match the roof on which it is located; as weUas painted fo match any: materials used for equipment screening: .05 The method and/or screening material used shall not be readily recognizable as a screening devicebut shall be'integrated into the design'of the building as a part of therefore. .O6 All equipment screening. shall be retained and maintained in good condition. (AMC 18.18.090.020.0201:)" Based on the size of the building, the property frontages on three (3) public rights-of-way, and the irregular shape of the property, the site cannot accommodate the equipment on the ground while maintaining all required setbacks. The 18roof-mounted units proposed would not be visible from Santa Ana Canyon Road, Riverview Drive, the Riverside Freeway, or the surrounding residences to the south andahe office buildings to the wesfof the property. The parapet screening is ihcprporated into the architecture of the building and would comply with the requirements of the Code pertaining to the establishment oYroof-mounted equipment within the Scenic Corridor as indicated above. <Because the equipment would not'be visible from any public street„ public orprivateproperty at finishedgratle level, or any floor IeveP of any residential'stnlcture; and would comply with Code, staff recommends aooroval of the request for roof-mounted equipment. (17) Thebuilding section exhibit indicates that the height of the building may partially block views looking from south to nortfi; however, similar approvals have been granted for buildings in excess of 35 feet in tieighf on Riverview Drive as shown in the following table: i Address . ;Height of Office ' -Approving Enfitlernent ,Boildln 15B North Riverview Drive ~ ~ 41 feet ~ Conditiohai Use. Permit No. 2722 175NortH Riverview Drive ' 39 feet Conditional. Use Permit No. 2773 180 North Riverview Drive" 57.5 feet: Conditionatllse Permit No. 2692 (18) Waiver(a} pertains to the minimum landscape and structural setbacks required adjacent to a freeway. CodeYequires`a landscape setback of 25 feefwide'and a structural setback of 90 feet wide adjacent to the Riverside Freeway, ahd plahs indicate a landscape setback ranging from 15 to 26 feet and a structural setback of 26 feet: Staff believes the strict applicatioh of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identicatzohing classification in the vicinity: This propertyis unique because it has'an irregular triangle shape; a long frontage of 1,185 feet adjacent to the Riverside Freewayand frohtages on three public rights-of-way which significantly limits the amount of usatile land area:''The prbpertyto the west (180 North?Riverview Drive) has an existing landscape setback of 20 to 40 feetand was granted a waiver of structuraTsetback adjacent td the freeway (40 feet) as seen in the following photograph. Furthermore, unlike the irregular shape of the subjectproperty; the property to the west has a frontage along the Riverside Freeway of only 442 feet and is rectangularly-shaped; therefore, the provided landscape and structural setback is proportional to the adjacent property with the same zone) Considering the special circumstances affecting this property and privileges enjoyed bysimilarly-zoned properties ih the area, staff recommends approval of this waiver.. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2002 Item No. 4 Page 7 ~roposee3 Aerial View'of Adjacent Properties (20) _' Waiver (c) pertains to the minimum number of tequiredparking spaces: Code. requires a minimum of 300 parking spaces for the'professional office uses. Plans Indicate 281 parking'spaces provided, resulting in a deficiencyof 19 spaces. Code requires that " requests for waivers relating to minimum number of parking'spaces that do not exceed 10% of the required number of parking spaces sftall be accompanied'by a parking letter, and a parking demand studyheed softie completed by the City's Traffic and Parking ConsultanC. Based upon the evaluetion by the applicant (attached),"staff recommends aoproval of the parking waiveF for a professional office building, .based upon the following findings submitted'by theapplicant: (i) "That although the gross floor area of the building is 75,000 square feet, the estimated usable area will be approximately 70,250 square feet which equates to a parking Yequirement of 281 parking spaces. (ii) That on-street parking is prohibited along both Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive and therefore; on-street parking would not be altered. (iii) That parking is contained within the property boundaries of each building on the block and there is no circulation between the subject site and the property to the west. Page B Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 (iv) That there will not bean increase in traffic congestion within the off-street parking r areas provided. forthe proposed use because the project is designed to anticipate the peak demand for the professional office uses proposed. (v) That the driveways and parkingereas forthe adjacent properties are self-contained and separate from the proposed project and impedance of vehicular ingress or egress is nearly impossible:' (21) Waiver (d) pertains to the maximum number of permitted wall signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zohe; Code permits not more than two (2) wall signs for a tenant unit where the slgnsere located on parallel walls and notvisible to he freeway, and in no case shall the aggregate total area bf all sighs exceed l0% of the total area of the face of the buildtng of 200 square feet whichever is less. The: applicant proposes a total of six (6) wall sighs, three (3) walls sign on each of the north (facing the Riverside Freeway} and south (facing Riverview: Drive and Santa Ana Canyon: Road) elevations:: These signs would advertise the three (3) largest tenants occupying the office building.:.. Staff believes the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiesLnder identical zoning classification in the vicihity because thepropertyoccupied by Home Depot (1.095 North Pullmah Street) across the Riverside Freeway, received a waives ih 1994 to`permitsix (6) wall signs with a total area of 1,198 square feet for all wall.: signs: Based on the subject property's unique orientation to major arterials and the freeway; and because. the aggregate area of the proposed wall signs for the office building would have a cumulative area of approximately 44 square feet (significahtly less than 1 % of the areabf the elevatioh), staff recommends abproval of this waiver request. (22) Code Section 18.18.040.0101 pertaining to tree preservation within the Scenic Corridor defines Oak, Pepper', Sycamore, ahd Eucalyptus tree species as a specimen tree. The Scehic Corridor Overlay Zone permits the remova(of specimen trees subject to specified findings and approvat of a Specimen Tree Removal Permit considered by the Planning Commissionat a Noticed public hearing: Code Section 16:18.040:050.060 requires that ahyspecimen trees destroyed pursuant to a permit issued by the City shall be replaced on < the same parcel orin the publigright-of-way located ih the immediateVicinity'as directed by the City: ,The Code furtherspecifies that replecemeht tees shall be a minimum 24-indh box size at the time of planting. (23) The landscape plans indicate the removal of i6 specimen trees (1 Eucalyptus ahd 15 Pepper trees) adjacent to the' north property line.... The: removal' of the trees is necessary for grading of the propertyahd the construction of the buiidi~g pad and the parking lot. The tree ~epiacemeht plan: indicates that thirty-nine (39), 24-inch box specimen trees are proposed'and dispersed throughout the property {in conformance with the minimum number required by Code). Because reasonable andpractical development of the property requires destruction of the trees, staff recommends approval of the tree removal. permit (24) The applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit airspace commercial condominiumsubdivision. The subdivision is being requested in order to allow the sale and purchase of individual tehaht spaces for the 75,000 office building. She proposed configuration of driveways; accessways; and parking provides adequate circulation and a recommended condition of approval requiFesthaf an unsubprdinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and perking be recorded for the property Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 prior to the recordation of the final map: The Generaf Plan identifies this site for Cow- Density Office land uses;'and the proposed subdivision is wnsistentwith this designation: FINDINGS: (25) Section 18.42.110 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings which are required to be made before the parking waivers are approved by the Commission: {a) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to tie provided for such'use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate ail vehicles attributable to°such use under thehormal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; and (b) That thevariance, under the conditions imposed, if eny, will not increase the demand and competition. for parking spaces upon the. public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (c) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjaceht private property ih the immediate vicinity of the propdsetl'use (which. property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement incompliance with. Section 18.06.010.020 of this Code); and (d) That the variance, under theconditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for suchLse;'and {e) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress tobr egress from adjacent properties upoh the'public streets in the immediate ` vicinity of the proposed use, Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any variance pursuant to this Section by the Zoning Administrator, Nearing Officer, Planning Commission or City Couhcfl, the granting of any such variance shall be deemetl contingent upon operation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use'as cohtained ih the parkfig demand study that formed the tiasis for. approval of said'variance; Exceeding, violating; ihtensifying or otherwise deviating from any of saidassumptlons as'contained in the parking demand study shallbe deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed updn the waiver whicft shall subject the waiver to termination dr modificatidn pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.60:200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits). (26) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zohing Code, a codification maybe granted for the purposebf assuring thaf no property, because of'speciaf circumstances'applicabia to it shall be deprived ofprivileges commonly enjoyed'by other properties in the same vicinity and zone:-The sole purpose of any variahce br code waiver is to prevent discrimination and' none shall be approved which `'would have the effecYof'granting a special privilegenot shared byother similar properties. Therefore, before any variance or code waiver is granted by the Planning Commission, it shall be shown: Page 10 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item 'No. 4 (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape; topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply,to other identically. zoned properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning: classificatiorc in the vicinity. (27) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that. the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Sectidn 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); , (b) That the 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; (c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate tc allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety; (d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose ah 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 any, will not tie detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (28) Zoning Code Section 98.18.040.050 states that as a prerequisite to granting ahy Specimen Tree Removal Permit, the Planning Commission or City Council may impose conditions and shalt make one or more of the following findings: (a) That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed destruction; (b) That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires destruction of the tree or bees; (c) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to treescape will not be materially affected bythe proposed destruction; (d) That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary;: or (e) That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the destruction: (29) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section fi6473.5) makes it mandatory: to include in alfmotiohs approving, or recommending approval ofa tract map, a specific finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Page 11 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 4 Further, the law requires that the Commission'make anybf the following findings when' dehying or recommehding denial of a parcel mapi 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. That the design or improvemenfpf the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. That the site is not physically suitable fpr the type of development; 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed tlensity of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision br the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious. public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the typebf improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or for access through or use of property withih the p~pppsed subdivision:' RECOMMENDATION: (30) `Staff recommends Shat, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commissidn, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, tNe Planning Cpmmissipn take the following actions'as indicated in the attached Yesolutipns including the findings and cdnditiohs contained therein: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for this project.. (b) By motion, approve waivers (a), (b), (c), and (d). (c) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit Nd: 2006-05165. (d) By motion, approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222. (e) By motion, approve Specimen Tree Rembval Permit Np; 2006-00006. Page 12 [p~AFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007--*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05165 BE GRANTED (150 NORTH RIVERVIEW DRIVE) 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: PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT N0.463, RECORDED JANUARY 25 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010043542 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE GOUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER "RIVERVIEW DRIVE" AS DELINEATED ON PARCEL MAP NO. 84-230, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 196, PAGES 33, 34 ABD 35 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL C: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS AS CREATED UNDER THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED NOVEMBER 22, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-538297, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL D: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS AS CREATED UNDER THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED JUNE 4, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85-203046, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 22, 2007, at 2:30 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, 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 proposed use, to construct a 52-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment and building height in excess of code in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040 (Office), 18.18.030.020.0201 (Height), and 18.18.090.020:0202 (Roof-Mounted Equipment) with waivers of the following: (a) SECTION NO. 18.18.090.010.0101 (b) SECTION NO. 18.18.090.010.0103 Minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to a freeway. 90 feet structural and 25 feet landscape required; 26 feet structural and 15 - 26 feet landscape proposed) Minimum landscape setback adjacent to a local street. 20 feet required; 14 feet proposed) Cr\PC2007- -1- PC2007- (c) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 (d) SECTION NO. 18.18.090.050.0501 Minimum number of required oarkino spaces. 300 required; 281 proposed) Maximum number of permitted wall signs. (2 permitted per business unit not visible to freeway; 2 proposed per business unit visible to freeway) 2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved as the site is unique because of its irregular triangle shape, long frontage adjacent to the freeway and frontage on 3 public rights-of-way which constrains the usable area of the lot. Additionally, the neighboring property to the west provides proportionally similar landscape and structural setbacks. 3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is hereby approved because the site is uniquely constrained by its irregular shape and denying the waiver would deprive this property a privilege enjoyed by another property in the vicinity because the neighboring property to the south has been granted a variance for a similar landscape setback. 4. That the above-mentioned waiver (c), under the conditions imposed will not cause fewer off- streetparking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the proposal under the normal and reasonably foreseeable operation of such use, that although the gross floor area of the building is 75,000 square feet, the estimated usable area will be approximately 70,250 square which equates to a parking requirement of 281 parking spaces. 5. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal since on- street parking is prohibited along both Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. 6. That the waiver, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the.proposed use since parking is contained within the property boundaries of each building on the block and there is no circulation between the subject site and the property to the west. 7. That the waiver, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed uses because the project is designed to anticipate the peak demand for the professional office uses proposed. 8. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the driveways and parking areas for the adjacent properties are self-contained and separate from the proposed project. 9. That the above-mentioned waiver (d) is hereby approved as denying the waiver would deprive this property a privilege enjoyed by another property across the freeway that was granted a variance for the same number of wall signs but with a maximum area of 1,198 square feet. Further, the aggregate area of proposed wall signage for the office building would have a cumulative area of approximately 44 square feet, significantly less than 1 % of the area of the building elevation, 10. That the size and shape of the site for the professional office building is adequate to allow full development in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 11. That the size of the building, the property frontages on three (3) public rights-of-way, and the irregular shape of the property limits the ability to accommodate the equipment on the ground while -2- PC2007- maintaining all required setbacks. Further, the roof-mounted equipment would not be visible from the adjacent public rights-of-way and surrounding residences. 12. That the height of the building is consistent with similar approvals that have been granted for buildings in excess of 35 feet in fieight on Riverview Drive. 13. That "* indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that np - correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal; 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 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 safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and ground 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 Police Department, Community Services Division approval 2. That the building and parking lot lighting shall be decorative. Additionally, lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted and directed away from nearby residential properties to protect the residential integrity of the area. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 3. That all trash generated from this office building shall be property contained in trash bins located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Community Preservation Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner. 4. That an on-site trash truck tum-around shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said tum-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection, and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Street and Sanitation for review and approval 6. 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 as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. -3- PC2007- 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery. 8. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 9. That all roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.18.090.020.0202 pertaining to the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and 18.38.17p pertaining to the C-G (General Commercial) Zane. Such information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 10. That 4-foot high street address numbers shall be displayed flat on the roof of the building in a color that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 11. That a final coordinated sign program for the office building, including specifications for the monument sign and wall signs, shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as to placement, design, and materials. Said plans for the monument sign shall incorporate the stone treatment used on the building and a decorative cornice treatment along the full length of the monument sign. The building signs shall be designed to complement the architecture of the office building. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations' item. 12. That all new backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. 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, 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. That all existing water services and fire lines 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 is necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs td upgrade or to abandon any water service of the fire line. 16. That the developer shall improve Riverview Drive with a 4-foot wide sidewalk and 6-foot wide landscaped parkway and Santa Ana Canyon Road with a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5-foot wide landscaped parkway including an ADA curb ramp with truncated domes in conformance with Public Works Standard Details 161-A and 111-2. The curbs may remain in place and does not need to be relocated. Additional right-of-way dedication is required to provide 10-feet total from face of curb to proposed right-of-way line. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 17. That a parkway and sidewalk shall be constructed with the parkway irrigation connected to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A bond for the required improvements shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a forth approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the -4- PC2007- Development Services Division for all work performed in the right-of-way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections: 18. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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: • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP: • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs: • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. •' Identifies the entity that will be responsible for tong-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 19. That prior to issuance of a 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 WQMR • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WOMP are available onsite. o Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 20. 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.). 21. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 22. That no required parking area shall be fenceri or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses.. 23. That gates shall noEbe installed across any driveway in a manner' which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted far building. permits. 24. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding seven (7) feet in height as measured from the grade of the sidewalk and that plans shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation manager for his review and approval showing conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the monument sign. 25. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertaining to -5- PC2007- parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 26. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed form to the Anaheim Police Department. 27. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review. Said plans shall incorporate tinted glass or opaque windows and a distinct entryway facing Riverview :Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road and decorative lighting along each building elevation. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 28. 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. 29. That final landscape plans in compliance with Zoning Code requirements for the subject property shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Said plans shall show minimum 24- inch box size trees, shrubs., groundcdver, and clinging vines to be planted in layers on all walls visible from the public right-of-way and within landscaped setbacks. Any decision made by the Planning Department regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. All trees shall be properly and professionally maintained by the property owner to ensure mature, healthy growth. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 30. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services bivisioh requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282 (to permit and construct a 45-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment with waiver of the minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway), Conditional Use Permit No. 2690 (to permit a 3-story, 57 Y: foot high commercial building with waivers of required site screening, type of business sign, minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway), and Variance No. 3882 (waiver of minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway and required site screening to construct a'3-story commercial office building). 31. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein: 32. 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. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 30, 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. 33. 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 No. 1 B, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 34. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition'Nos. 17, 19, 26 and 31,above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 35. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. -6- PC2007- 36. 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 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice 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 January 22, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. 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 January 22, 2007, 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 2007.. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION _7_ PC20D7- City of Anaheim ~~.AI~TI~~I~1G ~~~AR~~~~i'~' 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05165 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-222 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006-00006 Owner: Silver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC., 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Agent: Warren Williams Jr., Silver Oak Development, 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Location: 150 North Riverview Drive: Property is approximately 4.3-acres, located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive, having frontages of 852 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 340 feet on the east side of Riverview Drive. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00006 -Request to remove up to 16 specimen trees (15 Pepper trees, 1 Eucalyptus). Gonditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 -Request to construct a 52-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment and building height in excess of Code in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay with waivers of (a) minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to a freeway (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a local street (c) minimum number of required parking spaces and (d) maximum number of permitted wall signs. www.anaheim,net Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 -Request to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision. ACTION: Commissioner X)OCoffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XJOC and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon a finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it was 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 comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner XmCoffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed tentative map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan, and the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development, and does therefore approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222, to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.0. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEL (714)765-5139 owner's expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,,... Subdivision Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then recorded concurrently with the final parcel map. 2. That an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking approved by the Planning Services Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Development Services Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee that the property shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of vehicular access and circulation and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. 3. That there shall be a recorded use agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney's office for all parcels sharing fire protection equipment and associated appurtenances. 4. That prior to approval of the final map, a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions far maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality Management Pian, and a maintenance field exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 5. That prior to final map approval, all units shall be assigned street addresses off of Riverview Drive by the Planning Department. 6. That the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That prior to final tract map approval, Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 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. 8. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim 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. 9. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved structure. TPM2006_222_Excerpt City of Anaheim 1L~illliig~l~ ~~~AP2'TI~~IIi'Y' 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05165 - 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-222 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006-00006 Owner Silver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC., 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Agent: Warren Williams Jr., Silver Oak Development, 8175 Eask Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Location: 150 North Riverview Drive: Property is approximately 4.3-acres, located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive, having frontages of 852 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 340 feet on the east side of Riverview Drive. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 -Request to construct a 52-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment and building height in excess of Code in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay with waivers of (a) minimum landscape and structural settiack adjacent to a freeway (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a local street (c) minimum number of required parking spaces and (d) maximum number of permitted wall signs. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 -Request to establish a 1-lot, 35-unit commercial airspace subdivision. www.anaheim.net Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006.00006 -Request to remove up to 16 specimen trees (15 Pepper trees, 1 Eucalyptus). ACTION: Commissioner XmC offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to remove up to 16 specimen trees and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon a finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it was considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the putilic review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner )O0C and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00006 to remove up to 16 specimen trees (15 Pepper trees, 1 Eucalyptus tree) and further finds that reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located require removal of the trees to create a building pad to accommodate the proposed office building and parking lot and that the specimen trees removed shall be replaced with trees on the same parcel from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone subject to the following conditions of approval: 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.0. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEl (714)765-5139 1. That the sixteen (16) specimen trees authorized for removal shall be replaced on-site,:....: by a minimum of thirty-nine (39), 24-inch box size trees which shall be properly maintained. Any replacement tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased, and/or dead. 2. That the subject property shall be development substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9. 3. That the trees approved for removal shall remain until a grading permit is issued for the construction of the office building. 4. That prior to issuance of the final occupancy permit for the office building, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 5. 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. 6. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved structure. SPT2006_00006_Excerpt SECTIOP! 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Attachment -Item No. 4 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: ~I~~ OIa~G(t71 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: /LuJrrwK aAUOScarP/sra~cruk-aL se-r6hclc RnrRre++t To qI F~,ay yc' H., <t~ ®d 90'SrpwcroBar, /25'LA-'ascaPE Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regazding the property far which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings?_/ Yes _No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special 2. Are the special circumstances that apply tq the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? _ Yes No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different. 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the properly deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone?_/Yes _No [f your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: _ _.. 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? _ Yes ~No EXPLAIN: The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which wou have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not othe ex ressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. 62 oG Signature of Property O er or Authorized Agent Date 37625~DECEMBER 72, 2000 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO. f`U~ gip, 2006 - 0 5 ~ 6 SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Attachment -Item No. 4 NSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: (A .separate statement is PERTAINING TO: Sections 18.03.040.030 .and 1$.12.06D of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver maybe granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a vaziance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. Are there special cjrcumstances that apply to the property in matters such assize, shape, topography, location or surroundings? _Yes _ No. answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: 2. Are the special circumstances that apply trythe propery different from other properties in the vicinity which aze in the same zone as your property? _Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special 4. Were the special circa~sstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? _Yes ,[No EXPLAIN: The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no vaziance or Code waiver shall be approved which wo d vet effect of granting a special privilege no[ shazed by other property in the same vicinity and zone which, is not otherwi a pre y authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances aze not permitted. /IJ•~J~ I?_f S~oG Signature of Property Owne or Authorized Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. 3762S1DECEMBER I2, 2000 SUP N0. 2006 - 0 5 i 6 k ~+ I I I '. 1 i A~}'~` --- - [- - December 4, 2006 Kimberly Wong City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Parking Variance Justification- 960 N. Riverview Drive Prefile No. 2006-00057 Dear Kimberly: Attachment -Item No. 4 The Site Plan for the referenced sfte is being submitted for formal review with a total number of provided parking spaces that is slightly below the code-required minimum number. In accordance to your pre-file review letter dated July 13, 2006, Silver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC (SOAR) hereby requests a variance from the code for the number of provided parking stalls. Based on the gross building area of 75,000 square feet, 300 stalls are required. Our site plan indicates that 281 stalls will be provided, a 19-stall deficit. This equates to a 6.3% shortfall. Following are the variance requirements and the corresponding justifications: ® That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under fhe normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; The parking requirement is based a gross building size of 75,000 square feet. The estimated usable area will be approximately 70,250 square feet. Applying the code requirement to this area equates to a total of 281 stalls. Additionally, the proposed building is being designed and marketed as a "class A" building. This will dictate a lease rate that will discourage high-demand tenants such as telemarketing firms. Also, as stated in the letter of operation, Development. Resource Consultants, Inc. will be occupying one-third of the building, and as a professional services company, does not have the parking demand that the code anticipates. ® That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase fhe demand and compefition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; Off-street parking is prohibited along both adjacent street frontages (Santa Ana Canyon Road (SACR) and Riverview Drive). This restriction will not change with the addition of this project; therefore the off-street parking will be unaltered. ~U~ X10. 2006 - 0 5 ~ ~ J . ~ 8175 Has: Rai+er Houleva; a. :Uiancim Hills. CA 92804 /'x:714.:263 4L25 F:714.:R4.4635 Page 2 of 2 City of Anaheim December 4, 2006 m That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the, immediate vicinity of the proposed use; As with the proposed project, the parking for the adjacent buildings is contained within the property boundaries of each building. There is no circulation between the subject site and the only adjacent property to the west. The driveways along Riverview Drive for each project are separated and clearly defined. There is landscape existing and planned between the parking for each project. Parking in the adjacent project will be extremely inconvenient at the very least. a That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not incn=ase trati!c congestion within the off-street packing areas or lots provided for the proposed use; Given that the site is a new development being designed with the variance taken into consideration, congestion within the off-street parking areas will be no different than if the site were designed without the need for the requested variance. That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, wil! not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the puhlic streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; As noted above, the driveways and parking areas for the adjacent properties are setf- contained and separate from the proposed project. Impedance of vehicular ingress or egress is Heady impossible. Please consider these justifications as persuasive evidence that the parking deviation from code is minor and should have little or no effect on the subject project, nor the surrounding streets and properties. We look forward to a favorable rewmmendation for this variance as the project completes the approval process. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for any additional informatics as you review this request. Sincerely, Silver Oak Development Inc. for Sliver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC "V, 1 Warren Williams Jr. Principal ~U~ N0. ¶2000 - 0 5 2 E V.J'll~d~Jl' ®~.~ D E V E L O P M E N T SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Attachment -Item Plo. 4 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRE`/D FORpPARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: I b ~ 0 ~ ®~ ~ • ®7~® ®~o (A sepazate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: ~M~u Srr NS TN2~~ Pkcg t?GQVE$rel~ OrJ NoR,TFF ~~ SotlTd;' FLe~(P Sectiens 18.03.040,030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administmtor or Planning Commissicn, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identicat zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. th order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought' fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters suoh as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? Yes _ No. If yow answer is "Yes;' describe the special circumstances: TN'6 6 vI ~0l'NG. 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as yow property? ~[ Yes _ No If yow answer is "yes p"describe how the property is different: PTV P2R'r'1 ~J'/S 9/ GW y -~ SR.JTI) /i,-IYk GYn1 KOA-D Old o?POSlT6 skies 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges cwrently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the snore zone? _Yes _ o If ybw answer if"yes;' describe the special circumstances: 4. Were the special circuptstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? _Yes_/ No EXPLAIN: The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shell be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which wo Id have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not othe a sly authorized by zone regulations governing s~ubjectBpro~pe_rty. Use variances are not permitted. Signatwe of Property O er or Authorized Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. s~sxs~oECentaea tx, xooo Item No. 5 o °, J, s®• 9'G X 7 92 9~ ' ° ~ AIAFAIfAN LINEN SUPPLY d 9 /1 (~ m ® ytC m ~ [~° ~~ Y 9P B2.2 2 9LlC dr~K.® `~~ >.tt MARHET Z SP 92-2 SP 92-2 ~ ° '9~ ® Q FW(EY JAKE'S RESTAURANT ° ~, ORIVE.THRU G7 REST O• S d2 ® ° KATELLA AVENUE °w MN,.~ YL4iE. P„aIN~LN. ww wmn rtHr. ma, /PMMFMS 0W ~P~wiNFNrs ,H Vu w w w F a x .' e e e e 0 v F General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 Subject Property Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006-00044 Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 250' Requested By: CITY COUNCIL Q.S. No. 98 Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 137-321-14, 137-321-37, 137-321-40, 137-321-48, 137-321-52, 137-321-61, 137-321-62, 137-321-85, 137-321-94, and 137-321-95). 70221 ~e c July 2005 ~ V General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006-00044 Requested By: CITY COUNCIL Subject Property Date: January 22, 2007 Scale: 1" = 250' Q.S. No. 98 Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 137-321-14, 137-321-37, 137-321-40,137-321-48, 137-321-52,137-321-61,137-321-62,137-321-85, 137-321-94, and 137-321-95). ~o2zi Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 5a; PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM (Motion} 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO'2006-00448. (Recommendation Resolution). 5c. AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-2 (Recommendation Resolution) (TRACKING NO. SPN2006-00044} SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) The subject properties encompass approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Hasler Street; as depicted on Map A on page 2: The subjecfproperties are within The Anaheim Resort, the Anaheim Resort Specific. Plan Area and Site A of the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay as depicted on Map B on page 3. REQUEST: (2) This is a request initiated by the City Council to provide an opportunity to develop wholly-residential projects that include rental housing that is affordable to very- low and low-income families on designated properties. The request consists of the following. Proposed Actions: Previously-Certified Mitioated Negative Declaration and Addendum- Request for aiietermination that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92'2 Amendment No. 7 -Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay InitiaLStudy and Mitigated Negative: Declaration together with Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. OOB5b, along with the'Addendum preparedfor General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 fo the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (thee: "Proposed Amendments"), are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Amendments: The proposed environmental: documentation' has been'provided td the Planning Commission as Attachment A to this staff report and isdn file in the Planningbepartmeht. General Plan Amendment No. 2006=00448 -Request to'amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note No. 2" of "Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City' pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial Recreation land use designation description (see Attachment B for a complete text of the proposed amendments): Amendment No. 7 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 -Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No: 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) (see Attachment C for a complete text of the proposed amendment). Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 Mao A o ~ \'` m ~ z ~~ ~ s9 z ~~ ~~. ~9 -- - 9 ~ _ ~,\ KATELLA AVE ~ ,~.~ ~r ~ r^`rn ~'~ I ~ ~ -9 ~`~~'~ ~ MANCHESTER AVE ~ ~~ l x ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,a.... i du ~~ ~ ~ > ~ ~,.. ' rc- u ( ~ ~~ :fir',. ' ~ '~ ' 1 ,"~~",' "/ sK' - T~s ! r t W ~~ ~ m"`t~4~ ~ mva asv ~, "" ~ T I I ~I Key 4o Features ~~~ Subject Properties f ~ ~ -1__f r- . ~ I - II ~ _ ~~ The Anaheim ResortT"' Boundary ~` ~ j PSF Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 Rfl?g B gp ~ 1 yy G ' N ~IIr~~~~ ~~ ,~~~ f ~ r ~~~~~ i ~~° i i ~ - ~`~- IFRRITOSAN F,F CERRROSAVE ~ {``p y '~ o ~~ ~ 0 DL9NFV WA~ ~ ~ ~~ w O~siyF~v i ~ ~~~NATELIAA ~ \~ ~~.. I ~ m rC , QG. ~^Ti MF ~ ~ 9pE ~.. ~1 u ~~ ~ _ E CAANGEW GD4VE ~ d I , I Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay SIIeA Slte B y° a The Anaheim ResadTM Boundary ~Rnnw.uAVe ~., The Anaheim Resod Speclac Plan Boundary Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission. January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 BACKGROUND: ', (3) On September 27, 1994, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Resort Specific ' Plan Noi 92-2 (hereinafter referred to as "ARSP") td provide a Tong range, comprehensive plan for future development of 549.Sacres located within The Anaheim Resort: The ARSP includes Zoning and. DeveldpmentStandards, Design Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan and permits tfie development of hotels/motels; convention, retail and other visitor serving uses. The Zoning and Development Standards are sefforth in the specificplan document and in Chapter 18.116 of fhe Anaheim Municipal Code. Since the adoption of the ARSP, seven amendments and four adjustments have tieen proposed; all but one of these proposals has been approved. Please see Attachmenf C for a description of each of the proposals.. (4) On August 22, 2006, Council approved an amendment to the General Pian to note that in targeted areas within The Anaheim Resort, residential uses are conditionally permitted when such uses are fully integrated intoa minimum 300- "'room full-service hotel and do notresult in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with'the subjeck property's permitted hotel/motel density; unless such impacts are dulyanalyzedand mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. Prior to this General Plan Amendment, residential uses were notpermitted within The Anaheim Resort: On September 12, 2006; Council adopted Ordinance No~ 6036 amending the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to establish the Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay and provide the oriteria td develop residential units in donjunction with afull-service hotel (5) In response tb comments and letters received from SunCal Companies prior to and during the August 22, 2006 Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare additional amendments to the General Plan and ARSP to allow for wholly-residential development on designated properties when such development includes rental housing that is`affordable to very-low and low- income families (see Map A for subject properties).'Minutes from the August 22, 2006, Council meeting for this agenda item (Agenda Jtem! No. 44) have been provided to the Planning Commissipn as' Attachment D to this staff report and are on file in the Planning Department. Comments regarding the proposed affortlabilityrequirements are on pages 12, 16; and 30-39. (6) The designated properties are currently developed with a retail center, two single-family homes and two mobile home parks, There are 262 mobile homes within the two mobile home parks, 63 of these mobile homes are in the process of being acquired by the City for heaxtensidn of Gene`Autry Way to Raster Streek To date, 38 of these 63 mobile homes have'been'acquired by the City:. The subject properties are within the ARSP area and the ARR Overlay. In addition, the mobile home parks are in the Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone, which is applied to mobile home,parks throughoutthe City:.! Surrounding land uses include restaurants located to the north, across Katella`Avenue; Hotels and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway located northeast and`east of the site; multi-family residential uses and a mobile home community td the south; and hotel and commercial uses, residential development, and a Disney employee parking lot to the west, across Raster Street. Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 DISCUSSION. (7) Staff fias prepared amendments to the General :Plan and the ARSP pursuant to thebomments and letters received from SunCal Companiespridr to and at the . August 22; 2OO6 Council meeting and as directed by the City Couhcil. Staff has worked with SunCal Companies; as the representative for the affected properties; to finalize theseprovisionss The full text of these amendments is provided ih Attachments B and C. (8) The proposed General Plan Amendment includes modifications to he Lahd Use ' Elementof the General Plan.:: The Land Use Element includes Table LU-4 "General Plan Density Prdvisions fdr Specific Areas of the City" which describes the land usesahd densities allowed by the ARSP's two districts and two overlays. Approvaf of the proposed General Plan Amendment would amend Note No. 2 of this table in regard to the Anaheim Resort Residential pverlay as follows (new wording is shown in bold): "...the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay, which applies to focused areas of the Specific Plan and provides for the incorporation of (i) ~esidentialUses into hotel developments when such uses an; fully integrated into a minimum 300- room full-service hotel or (ii) residential uses on designated properties that meet the affordability requirements: of the Anaheim Resort Residential.: Overlay." "For projects that are developed in accordance with the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay, (i) the maximum number of dwelling Units allowed shall be less than the number of hotel rooms proposedand such projects shall not create infrastructure impactsgreater than the subject property'spermitted hotel/motel density, as' permitted by the property's underlying C-R District density designation`unless otherwise mitigated through,subsequent environmental analysis, or (iij if the residential uses are on designated properties,projects sha// meefthe affordability requirements ofAnaheim Resort Residential Overlay and shall not7esult ih infrastructure impacts greater than those associated wfth the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlyfng C-R District density designation, unless such :impacts are dulyanalyzed and'mltigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review." The Land Use Element also includes descriptions of each of the City's General Plan lahd'use designations including. the Commercial Recreation land vse designation; a commercial designation thafappliesexclusively toproperties within The Anaheim: Resort.:. The designation is' intended to provide for tourist and entertainment-related industries, such as theme parks, hotels, tourist- ' oriented retailmovie theaters; and other visitor serving uses. Approval of this General Plan Amendment would amend this description as follows (new wording is shown in bold): "In addition, in targeted areas within The Anaheim Resort, residential uses are (i) allowed byconditionaLuse permit when such uses are fully integrated into a ' minimum 300-room full-service hotel, or (ii) allowed as a Master Planned have/opment when such uses are developed on designated properties subject to the affordability requirements of the Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay." 'Page s Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 (g) The General Plan density provisions for the ARSP were established largely. in consideration of tfte area's infrastructure capacity,:: As indicated in the proposed ' amendments; residentief develdpmeht would not be allowed to result in infrestructure rmpact5 greater than those associated with the subject property's hotellmotel densityunless such impects are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent envirohmental review.. The hotel/motel' density allowed for the subject properties is up to 75 hotel: rooms/gross' acre oc75 rooms per parcel; whichever is greater. SunCal Companies envisions developing approximately 1',500 residential units on the subjectproperties (asrndicated in comments and letters received from SunCal Companies prior to and at the August 22;2006; Council meetings no formal application for development has yet been filed)> The actual allowable number'. of units would be dependent upon the results of the future infrastructure studies necessary to establish environmental equivalency:'> (10) The Proposed Actions would also require that any wholly-residential development proposed on the designatedproperties be subjecEto the following affordability requ irements: (a} Fifteen percent (15%) of the' units shall be affordable multi-family rental units "for very low- and low-income households. (b) Twenty percent (20%) of the affordable rental units shall have rents that are affordable to'very low-income families whose incomes are aY50% or less of the annually-published HUD'area median income:: (c) Eighty percent(80%) of the affordable rental units shall have rents that are ' affordable toiow-nc~ome femilies whose incomes are at 60%° or less of the annually-published HUD area mediamincome. (dj The above affordability requirements shall be met regardless of the ' `availability of any subsidies; Ttie term "subsidyP does notinclude (a) the obtaining of tax credits pursuant to Section 47 df the Internal. Revenue Code,. for any affordable housing project,'(b) the provision of bond-financing pursuant to California or federal lawj or (c) any monies made available from anysource, whether governmental or'private so long as such monies do not require the expenditure of City funds or RedevelopmentAgency monies: These affordability provisions are reflective of the commitment to affordability ezpressed`by SunCal7epresentatives via' comments received prior to and at the August22; 2006; Counciimeeting: As noted in the meeting minutes; several membersbf the City Council indicated that the provision of affordable rental hdusing witft nokequirement for local subsidy was the impetus far their initiation ahd cohsideration of the proposed amendments. (11) The Commercial Recreation designation is intended to provide for tourist and entertainment-related industries: The General Plan. amendment would expand the allowable types of 7esidential`developmenttyithin the Cbmmercial Recreation land use designation and would change the commercial nature of this ' designation:' Unlike the residential uses allowed by,the previous General Plan " Amendment; which'are'required to be integrated with`a minimum 300-room hotel, wholly-residential development would be permitted through this. action. This. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 housing would be related to tdurist`and entertainment-related industries to the extent that it could provide additional housing for the employees of those industries. (12) The proposed amendments would., however, be consistent with the following goals contained in the Land Use Elementof the General Plan: (a) Goal 2.1 -Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City's diverse housing needs:-.The development of wholly- residential uses pursuant to the proposedamendments would require 15% of the units to be affordable to low and very-low income households and would tFiusprovide for a variety of housing opportunities: The proposed amendments would also require development of wfiolly-residential uses to be processed as a Master Planned Development, which would help ensure the quality of the housing. (b) Goal 4.1 -Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding landusesr Theproperties proposed to be designated to allow: for wholly-residential development are located. at the periphery of The Anaheim Resort. The existing and surrounding land uses include hotel and visitor-oriented uses, as weltas; wholly-residential uses including apartments and a mobile home park. The development of either hotel and visitor- oriented uses or wholly-residentiatuses would be compatible with the surrounding: land uses, due to the unique: characteristics of the subject properties4location. (c) Goal 7.1 -Address tfiefobs-housing relationship by developing housing near job centers ahtl transportation facilities The subject properties are Iodated within The Anaheim'Resort; a job center for tourist;: entertainment and convention-related:industries: The subjedf properties are served by several OCTA bus lines and are Iodated'adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway ahd approximately 1.35 miles frdmAnaheim Amtrak/Metrolinkststion. (13) The proposed amendment would also be consistent with Goal 5.1 of the Economic Development Element to expand housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community: As indicated in Paragraph (12)(a), the development of wholly-residential uses pursuant to the proposed amendments I would result in a variety of housing opportunities for a range pf incomes, (14) The proposed amendments should also be considered in light of the following Citygoals contained in the ARSP::s (a) 'To maintain and encourage Anaheim's position as a nationally recognized tourist; donvention and recreation center,,. (b)' To increase sales tax yields and further enhance the economic base of the: ' community; thereby lessening the tax burden on real property; (c) To encourage the developmentbf qualityJacilities which complement conventions; family entertainment; and rec~eatiort within appropriate areas of the community; and Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 (d)' Td maintain the integrity of The Anaheim Resort by permitting only compatible land uses within this designated area:. (15) In 2005, the City commissioned a market study entitled "Final Report, The. Anaheim. Resort =Focused Site Analysis, July 2005" prepared by Economic & Planning Systems to evaluate market conditions related to future development of three sites withih the Ctyof Anaheim (the "Focused Site Analysis"). Site 3 in the FocusedSite analysis includes he subject properties. The Focused Site Analysiswas reviewed ih analyzing'consistencybf the request with the ARSP goals in Paragraph (14). (a) The Focused Site Analysis found that hotel developmentmay not occur on Site 3 fdr a number of years: "This conclusion is based on the below-average occupancy rates and ADR (average daily rate) of hotels in the area, slow growth in rates over recent years because of the weaker location and proximity. to the freeway (which geherates noise due to traffic)and the supply of land better suited for hotel development" (page 4) (b} In regard to the impacts to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), the .Focused Site Analysis indicates that: "If conversion of Site 3 from hotel to residential use occurred, it would mean foregding future TOT revenues which could total approximately $4.6 million:: annually. However; these revenues may not occur for 10 to 15 years; the losses maynot be experienced until the supply ofavailableJahd for new. hotel rooms is nearly exhausted, which could 6e 24 to 55 years from noW < (depending on the future growth rate`of hotel demand). Without a hotel on the site'other'ezisting hotels or hotel sites will accommodate the demand that othenvisewould have been accommddated on SiteB:" (page 21) (c) in regard to the Lease Payment Measurement Revenues (LPMR), the Fddused Site Analysis states that: "Conversion of the site to residential uses is unlikely to have an impact on LPMR: The LPMR are the basis for payment df debt service for improvements to the area, and are measured largely by increases in TOT." (Page 22) (16) to order to ensure that future development of the subject properties is compatible with surrounding properties, the proposed specific plan amendment wilt require. ' developmentbf wholly-residential uses to be processed as a Master Planned Development: The ARSP requirements. for a Master Planned Development include reclassification of the project to its own Specific Plan Zone. The ARSP requires that the tlevelopmehtstandards of the new SpecficPlah Zone to be cohsistentwith the goals and'purpdse idehtified ih the City of Anaheim General Plan for the Commercial Recreatioh land use designation as well as the goals ahd objectives of the ARSP. ' The'requirements fo6a Master Planned Development also include that structural: height; landscaping and setbacks must. meet the requirements of the ARSP, and that development along Katella Avenue: must be in conformance with the ARSP "Central Core" requirements, special Page 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 standards intended to create ahigh-quality pedestrian environment along Katella ' Avenue and Harbor.Boulevard. (17) In addition toprocessing a new Specific Plan, the developer will also be required to process tentative tract maps and final site plans either concurrent with consideration of its Specific Plan or following its approval Because the project entails ari affordable housing component, the developer will also need to' enter into an Affordability Agreement with the City, (18) A zoning reclassification to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone will also. need to be approved in conjunction with these: actions: r Per Chapter 18.26 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the developer must prepare a conversion .impact report thaYanalyzes current;park tenancies and addresses the relocation assistance necessary to minimize displacement mpacts'upon current park residents. In addition, the developer is responsible for taking measures to mitigate any identifiable adverse impacts resulting from displacement due to the change in land use; including the payment of relocation assistance; (19) As' discussed ih Paragraph 11, the developer will also need to submit detailed studies demonstrating that its proposed housing project is able to achieve environmental equivalency with the impacts of development as allowed by the property's' underlying C-R Dist~icfdensity designation. (20) As of the printing of this staff report,lhe City has received six letters in opposition to the proposed: amendments. FouCof the letters are from area hotels; one letter is from the Anaheim/Orange County Hotel and Lodging Associatioh, and one. letter is from a real estate investment and management company. These letters have been: included as Attachment E to thin: staff report: , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS {21) On August 22;2006, the City Council determined that the Anaheim Resort. Specific Plan No: 92-2Amendment No. Z-Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) together with Updated `and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program IJo. 0085b are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for amendments to the General Plan e and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to conditionally permit residential uses in conjunction with afull-service hotel (22) In the comments and letters received from SunCal Companies prior to and at the August 22, 2006; Council meeting;: SunCal Companies. indicated that its proposal for wholly-residential land uses would have environmental impacts equivalent to the impacts analyzed for residehtial uses in conjunctioh with afull=service hotel In addition, SunCal Companies offered to prepare an addendum to the MND prepared for the prev(ous amendments to further analyze the similarity of its' associated environmental impacts: (23) An addendum to the MND has been prepared by consultants retained by SunCal Companies, with input and independent review by City staff, to evaluate the impacts of the proposed amendments to allow wholly-residential uses: Based on the analysis in the addendum, the proposed amendments would not result in any new significant impacts than those previously evaluated in the MND and do not Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 otherwise trigger the factors requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines; therefore; a subsequent environmental impact _ report is not required and the MND and the addendum may be used as the environmental documentation for the proposed amendments FINDINGS' (24) Before the Gommission recommends approval of any General Plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that altof the following conditions exist: (a) The proposed amendmeht maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan; (b) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest; health; safety; convenience; or welfare of the City; ', (c} The proposed amehdment would maintain the balance of land uses ', =within the City, and (dj If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is pnyscally suitable to accommodate the proposed modtfication;`including tiutnot limited to access,pHysioal constraints, topography; provision ofvtilities(and compatibility withsurrounding land uses.: (25) 'Before the Commission recommends approval of any specific plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows thaf all of the following conditions exist; (a) That the property proposed for the specific plan has unique site characteristics such as topography; Iodation or surroundings thatare enfianced by speciallahd use and developmenfstandards; (b) Thatthe specific plan inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purposes; standards and landvse guidelines therein; (c) That the specific plan results in development of desirable character that wiU be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; (d) That the specific plan contributes to a balance of land uses throughout the City; and ? (e) That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities: Page 10 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Item No. 5 RECOMMENDATION: (26) Staff recommends on the basis of the foregoing, unless contrary evidence is received at the public hearing, that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, recommend that the City Council 1) Find and determine that Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No: 2006-00442 and Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan along with the addendum prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00446 and Amendment No. B to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (Attachment A) reflect the City's independent judgment and. analysis, that the change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses will not create an additional impact in and of itself, and that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the. environment; 2) Approve the environmental documentation prepared for the project actions (Attachment A); and 3) Determine that Attachment A is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA. (b) By resolution (Attachment B), recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448, amending the Land Use Element of the General'Plan, Table LU-4 "General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" and the description of the Commercial Recreation land use designation by adopting the attached resolution including the findings contained therein. (c) By resolution (Attachment C), recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 8 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Zoning and Development Standards to modify the ARR {Anaheim Resort Residential) Overlay by adopting the attached resolution including the findings contained therein. Page 11 ATTACH-IMENT A A-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Amendment No. 7 -Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay A-2 Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b A-3 Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 -Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay Attachment A is provided to Planning Commission only. The above documents are on file in the Planning Department and are available for public review during normal business hours. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 AMENDMENT NO. 7 ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY Prepared for: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92803 Contact: Susan Kim (714)765-5139 Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Contact: Joan Patronite Kelly (714)444-9199 May 23, 2006 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (or the Inclusion o/Residential Uses TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................~...1 EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................4 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ..............................................................................................6 I. Aesthetics ......................................................................... .....................................8 II. Agricultural Resources ..................................................... .....................................9 III. Air Quality ......................................................................... ...................................10 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................ ...................................13 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................... ...................................13 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................ ...................................15 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................... ...................................16 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................ ...................................19 IX. Land Use and Planning .................................................... ...................................22 X. Mineral Resources ........................................................... ...................................22 XI. Noise ................................................................................ ...................................23 XII. Population and Housing ................................................... ...................................25 XIII. Public Services ................................................................. ...................................25 XIV. Recreation ........................................................................ ...................................28 XV. Transportation/Traffic ....................................................... ...................................28 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................... ...................................33 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................. ...................................39 FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION ........................................................................................41 REFERENCES CITED List of Exhibits 1 Regional Location ........................... 2 Local Vicinity ................................... 3 Existing Specific Plan Boundaries... 4 Aerial View of the Project Sites .....,. 5 SP 92-2 Development Density Plan 42 Follows Paoe R:IPmjetlsVmaheimU62911ni9al 6WEy Chedlisl-052266.tloc The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion o(Residentia/ Uses ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY The purpose of this document is to evaluate the inclusion of residential uses in conjunction with visitor-serving developments within certain locations of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (ARSP) area. As appropriate, this document tiers off of previously certified environmental documentation, as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 and does so by incorporating information which was presented in the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and from Mitigation Monitoring Programs (MMPs). Proiect Location The project involves two sites (Sites A and B), both of which are located in the ARSP area in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. Site A encompasses approximately 43.7 acres east of Anaheim Boulevard and Haster Street in the vicinity of t<atella Avenue. Site A is bound by Manchester Avenue to the northeast; Anaheim Boulevard and Haster Street to the west; and residential uses to the south. Site B is located on approximately 15.6 acres south of Wilken Way and east of Harbor Boulevard. Regional and local vicinity maps are included as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, of this report. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is part of the 1,078-acre Anaheim Resort, which encompasses three adopted specific plans: the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. Refer to Exhibit 3 for the location of all three specific plans. Proiect Background In September 1994, the City of Anaheim certified The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR No. 313 (State Clearinghouse No. 91091062) in support of the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. This EIR evaluated impacts associated with the establishment and implementation of the ARSP and created a mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 0085) in order to mitigate any such impacts. At the time the ARSP was adopted, the Specific Plan area encompassed approximately 549.5 acres. Site A is located within the original boundaries of the ARSP. Since certification of EIR No. 313, proposed modifications to the ARSP have included five amendments and four adjustments. A brief summary of the Amendments and Adjustments follows. As indicated, Amendment Nos. 1, 3, and 5 and Adjustment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were approved while Amendment No. 3 was withdrawn and Amendment No. 4 was included as part of Amendment No. 5. ARSP Amendment No. 7. In June 1997, the City approved ARSP, Amendment No. 1, which incorporated 4.67 acres into the ARSP Area. The site, located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, was immediately adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. Two other actions were taken in conjunction with the Specific Plan Amendment: an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 344) was adopted, and Conditional Use Permit'No. 3917 was approved. Incorppration of this acreage increased the 1,046-acre Anaheim Resort area and 549.5-acre ARSP Area by 4:67 acres. The amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan redesignated the 4.67 acres from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Recreation land uses. The density range for the 4.67 acres is Low-Medium, with a maximum of up to 350 hotel/motel rooms (based on 0 to 75 hotel or motel rooms per gross acre). Amendment No. 1 also reclassified the subject property to the SP92-2 Zone, C-R District. Conditional Use Permit No. 3917 approved the conversion of an existing 139-unit, 2-story, R:\PmlaclsVmaM1eiml1024JnWal Sludy Ghadlisl-0622~6.tloc ~ ~ ~ Lin aster ` {y \ G 1, ~ ~ ~, '6 _ ~.. g ~ ~ N 67 C T.. ~„ \ ~ ° Palmdale ~ ~ ~ ` \ ~ ~ ~ °= ` ~' E i (dt ~~ s r C7 ~ ~ t 14 1 ~ ~a. ~ ~ ,~~#~6 r _ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ .. o 3P Project Location Regional Location Exhibit 1 Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay N w~e 10 5 O 10 C O N S U f I I N G S Miles RRmjaCYNnI~e4NJe2&mt_fil Od29UG.pi( f 2 F E z Local Vicinity Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay W~E as azs o os c I Exh ibpi~ty~2 ~ v' ~'.~' CG NSUITING aMJ034~ea2 N W]SOB.~ Anaheim Resort Residential Oveday N W ~ E a.s a.ss o o.s c Mlles CONSVITI~rN~G Exisitina Specific Plan Boundaries Exhibit 3 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion o/Residential Uses 8 building apartment complex into a 136-unit Vacation Ownership Resort (known as "Dolphin Cove'): An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and the Conditional Use Permit. The Initial Study determined that with implementation of the mitigation. measures in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085, there would not be a significant impact associated with the actions, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 096 was also approved incorporating applicable measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. ARSP Amendment No. 2. In October 1998, Amendment No. 2 to the ARSP was proposed to add "coffee house" as a Conditionally Permitted Accessory Use in conjunction with an Automotive Service Station as part of the ARSP No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Section 7.0). The Planning Commission denied the amendment and the applicant subsequently withdrew their petition at the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting. ARSP Amendment IVo. 3. Approved in July 1999, Amendment No. 3 to the ARSP incorporated an approximately 0:73-acre site into the ARSP Area. The site is located at the northwest corner of Casa Grande Avenue and Casa Vista Street. The 0.73-acre site is developed with 44 guest rooms (part of an existing 100-room motel). The subject property was designated in the Anaheim General Plan for Medium Density Residential land uses, while the balance of the motel (lobby and 56 guest rooms) was included in the ARSP Area and designated for Commercial Recreation land uses. ; The amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 364) redesignated the 0.73-acre site for Commercial Recreation land uses with aLow- Medium density allowing a maximum of up to 54 hotel/motel rooms for the partial acre. Amendment No. 3 to the ARSP reclassified the 0.73-acre site from RM-1200 to the SP92-2 (ARSP) Zone, C-R District. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions. The Initial Study found that with the incorporation of applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 (adopted in connection with EIR No. 313), no additional significant adverse environmental impacts would be created with the proposed actions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0108 was adopted, incorporating applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. ARSP Amendment No. 4.' Amendment No. 4 was never approved as a stand alone amendment. The text of Amendment No. 4 provided for adjustments to the ARSP Zoning Code including refinements, clarifications, and provisions to streamline the project review process. These adjustments were included in the citywide Zoning Code Update which was addressed in EIR No. 330 and approved in June 2004. ARSP Amendment No. 5. Approved in June 2004, Amendment No. 5 to the ARSP incorporates approximately 26.4 acres into the ARSP area. The subject expansion area is located along Harbor Boulevard., south of Orangewood Avenue to the Ciry limits. The expansion area is developed with a mix of commercial uses including hotels, restaurants, retail, and professional offices. R'.1PmledsWnaheimU02911ni0al51utly G~eGlisl-052206.tlac 2 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or fhe Inclusion o/Residen(ial Uses The potential environmental impacts related to Amendment No. 5 were included in the overall evaluation in EIR No. 330. EIR No. 330 was subsequently certified and applicable mitigation.:.,. was incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085a. ARSP Amendment No. 6. In February 2005, Amendment No. 6 to the ARSP was approved to modify the Zoning and Development Standards to permit convenience markets with the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption as an accessory use to service stations in conjunction with the relocation of an existing service station facility with street frontage on Harbor Boulevard to a location not fronting on Harbor Boulevard. The City determined that the amendment was within the parameters assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously certified EIR No. 313 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. ARSP Adjustment No. 1. In May 1999, the City approved Adjustment No. 1 to the ARSP, which amended the setback and yard requirements to reflect the focal street status of Convention Way. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. ARSP Adjustment No. 2. In September 1999, the City approved Adjustment No. 2 to the ARSP, which amended the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. .The Ciry determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.. ARSP Adjustment No. 3. In May 2001, the City approved Adjustment No. 3 to the ARSP, which amended the ARSP temporary parking requirements. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.' ARSP Adjustment No. 4. In April 2004, the City approved Adjustment No. 4 to the ARSP, which amended the ARSP to permit office uses in legal nonconforming buildings subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The City determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 were the appropriate environmental documentation for the request. Environmental impacts associated with a specific office use in a legal nonconforming building are evaluated in connection with the Conditional Use Permit application. In May 2004, the City of Anaheim certified The Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003041105). The EIR evaluated impacts associated with the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. As part of this analysis, EIR No. 330 evaluated impacts related to Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort SP 92-2, which' was processed concurrently with the General Plan and Zoning Code update. This amendment expanded the ARSP area to include 26.4 acres along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue and north of Chapman Avenue. Site B is located within this expansion area. EIR No. 330 included a citywide mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 122) associated with the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and a specific mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 0085a) associated with Amendment. No. 5. Modifications to previously approved mitigation measures are indicated throughout the text as s#iket#re+~# for deleted text and bold for new text. EIRs No. 313 and 330 found that their respective proposed projects would create significant and unavoidable impacts. 'EIR No. 313 determined that impacts related to air quality .and traffic would be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted along with certification of the EIR. Similarly, EIR No. 330 found that impacts related to air R9PmjetlsVma~elmUe29\Inilial Slutly C~eckIIS60522e6.Eoc 3 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses quality, noise, and traffic would be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations was then adopted in conjunction with the certification of EIR No. 330. For......... purposes of the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the previously adopted statements of overriding considerations are still applicable to the issues previously addressed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1512(d)(1): Both EIR Nos. 313 and 330 and their associated mitigation monitoring programs are available for review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department during normal business hours. Existing Proiect Site Conditions Both Site A and Site B are fully developed with urban land uses. Exhibit 4 represents an aerial view of the project sites and surrounding land uses. The northern portion of Site A contains two restaurants, a nightclub, and associated parking areas. South of Katella Avenue, Site A is developed with a variety of commercial and retail uses,. hotels, and two mobile home parks (MHP). Both. portions of Site A are generally flat and vegetation is limited to .ornamental landscaping.. Surrounding land uses include the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway located northeast of the site; multi-family residential uses and a mobile home community to the south; and hotel and commercial uses, residential development, and a Disney employee parking lot to the west. Site B is developed with a variety of commercial uses including restaurants, automotive repair and parts sales, a retail center, and bank. Site B also contains a vacant, undeveloped lot and a vacant big box retail building. Site B is generally flat and on-site vegetation in Site B is limited to ornamental species used in landscaping and ruderal (weedy) species in the vacant lot. Surrounding land uses include residential uses to the east and hotels and commercial uses to the north, south and west. Proiect Descriation The project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2006-00442) and an amendment to SP92-2 (SPN No. 2006-00036) to allow for development of residential uses within two targeted areas of the ARSP. There are currently no provisions in the General Plan that allow residential uses within properties designated for Commercial Recreation land uses. Sites A and B are currently designated in the Specific Plan and General Plan for development of visitor-serving uses. Both sites are within Commercial Recreation (C-R) District Development Density Areas of the ARSP (refer to Exhibit 5) which permits development of restaurants, hotels, motels, and other related facilities. Service and retail businesses, which cater to visitors, may also be permitted in the C-R District when integrated with ahotel/motel development. As part of SP 92-2, four density designations were established within the C-R District: Low Density, Low-Medium Density, Medium Density, and Convention Center Medium Density. As described above, Katella Avenue bisects Site A into a northern portion and a southern portion. The northern portion of Site A is designated for Medium Density development with up to 100 hotel rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per parcel, whichever is greater. South of Katella Avenue, Site A is designated for Low-Medium Density development with up to 75 hotel rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per parcel, whichever is greater. The southern portion of Site A is also within an MHP overlay zone. Site B, located south of Wilken Way and east of Harbor Boulevard, is designated for Low Density development with up to 50 hotel rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per parcel, whichever is greater. As part of the project, the Commercial Recreation land use designation as described in the General Plan would be amended to allow for residential development in conjunction with the development of visitor-serving uses. The proposed project would also amend SP92-2 to allow ft1PmJedsWnehelmU024tlnilial SluOy Checklist-0522~6.doc 4 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specilic Plan Amendment No. 7 far the Inclusion of Residential Uses for development of Site A and Site B with residential uses in conjunction with a minimum 300-room full-service hotel. This would be accomplished through establishment of a residential overlay for Sites A and B. Allowable development densities within the ARSP area were established based on the maximum capacity of the area's infrastructure: This is especially applicable to roadway and sewer capacity. As a result, the allowed density of parcels propo§ed for development with residential uses would be limited to what would produce an environmental equivalent to the maximum hotel density of each parcel, especially in consideration of the amount of traffic at peak hour and wastewater flow as currently designated for uses that were evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. Purpose and Need The residential overlay is intended to provide additional development opportunities within The Anaheim Resort by providing property owners with the option of incorporating residential uses into future full-service hotel development plans. The overlay zone would be limited to certain .areas of The Anaheim Resort, and the number of residential units could not exceed the number of hotel units proposed on site or result in infrastructure impacts greater than those projected under EIR Nos. 313 and 330, unless additional mitigation is identified and addressed through subsequent environmental analysis. Projects would also need to be designed in a manner that would ensure a seamless blend into the tourist/entertainment character of the area. R:\PmjadslPnaheimU629\InNal5lutly Checklist-052296000 $ Aerial View of the Project Sites Exhibit 4 Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay x w~E t,aoo Boa o t,aoo '~~ CONSUITlN G' e Feal _.~.__..__. ._......_. .__. ,,...,..~_.. Linco~ Hte~ ', v ` ~ ,v ~ , __~3 -~ J~~. LI s eoyse>_1 lp,¢ Perk.+. r:. ,~ '/ 'e b u ~a . 9 .• mp ^i ~ ~"~ ? h`(' r~L v" gall Rd ..„, t ' ~ , ~ .The ' Dlensyiand R d ' C ~ ~ eso . ~. !i ~%, y/~~.. > i ?(I ~ t Amswheatl ,4~rra elm c cn~ Pond i of Anaheim 9 ~ ' Kalalla AVa i*. „ ~, FI ~- 7 ,. t J ~' ~. , .., .~ ..., ,~ .. ua~:.u ~.-~.u.._. s .~r. Anaheln~, ~. ~ k~~ ~ 1 _, Canvept z ' < An I Sladmm „ C60tar ~y~ 8a ,~ t' Anaheim ~, 1 , ~ b` ,' orengevrooa ova ij g ~. ~ t }~ w ~ ~ ;~ ~ r ' . ,. ~ ' - ~ s'~ _ -~ s~7. i Chapman Ave 2 a wY 4-.~vawv ~A~~..~.-~ ~~cfa.~~<v+c-.a ~ m te vS ~ i ~` ~~-i-~- ~ - Garden Grove ~ ; ; ~~ ! ~ Santa Fl a Rroer = I ... ii Y i I~ , ~ ~' r~ y ~ j ~ ~ `^. ' § ~ t ; ~J kria V9f ~ i~ , k i n .~--, G:~~,. ~' ~. e: ! a `` C ~„ Site A ~~ ~ C-R District, Low Density t~ ~ Y hl ~ Orange Site B C-R District, Low-Medium Density ~ Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) C-R District, Medium Density ~'~a~ C-R District, Convention Center Medium Density Public Recreation District ~ - r` ms SP 92-2 Development Density Plan Exhibit 5 Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay N w~ e ~R `"`qqq{"'' 0'S 0'PS 0 0'S CONSUI ZING L Miles ~m -xwa~nemv~o+aia.s o~m ~ ae~rv irn smear. jtNllp ~. // N ` VI'I'I' ®~' AI~tAIi~IIVI a __ ~- s, ~ °, ` Environmental C'Fiecictist P+orm ~M1 Fom,Rni.ivx IMie: ILIMOOt p pO[O •~ CASE NO.: GPA 2006-00442. SPM 2006-00036 SITE ADDRESS: The Anaheim Resott (see nnached mans and oroiect deacrintionl ENVIl20NIVIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follovring pages. ^ AestheticNisual ^ Biological Resources ^ Hazards & Hazazdous Materials ^ Miueral Resources ^ Public Services ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Guttural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Si ^ Air Quality ^ Geology/Soils ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Populaticn/Housing ^ Transportation/Traffic mificance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepazed. Q i find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated'' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requued, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eazlier EIR or NEGATNE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measu at aze imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~ ~, ~ S- Z2-of~ Si na reTOf City of Anaheim epresentative Date )6~.a~atn Lam. l~OJ'/'~c,0 (,~t4) 76S-S t3R PrintedNamelTiUe ~ Phone No. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion o/Residential Uses EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of "Supporting Information Sources" must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions; a) Potentially Significant dmpact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category; A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific Factors as well as general standazds (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program E1R, Master E1R, or other. CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an eazlier EIR or negative declazation (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an eazlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eazlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eazlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources fox potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepazed or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. R:1PmledsUnahevn1J92911nitiel Slutly CherlJlsl-062296.tloc The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 1'or the Inclusion oI Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than 'Less Than No Significant Signiffcant Significant ....Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the projecb a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ^ ^ ^ Q trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ^ ^ Q ^ site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ^ Q ^ ^ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the areal Narrative Summary: Questions Aand B - No Impact. The inclusion of residential uses along with the currently allowable land uses within Site A and Site B would not substantially alter the anticipated visual condition of the site from the conditions evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. According to the Anaheim General Plan, none of the roadways in the vicinity of either Site A or Site B are designated as scenic roadways nor is either site located within the Ciry's Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Additionally, there are no scenic vistas within or adjacent to either project site. Rather, the project sites are located within a fully developed urban area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources within a designated scenic corridor Question C -Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would represent a change to the existing visual conditions of the project site as discussed and evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. Portions of both Site A and Site B are located along the perimeters of the Anaheim Resort and are adjacent to residential areas. As stated on page 3.11-9 of EIR No. 313, "the juxtaposition of the different land uses...creates the potential for visual impacts to the surrounding areas." This impact related to development of Site A was considered significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations adopted in conjunction with the certification of EIR No. 313. However, the analysis provided in EIR No. 330 for Site B identified that the impact of the project on residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site would not be significant due to existing restrictions which limit the height of a building adjacent to residential uses to one-half the distance from the building to the residential zone boundary unless otherwise approved by a conditional use permit. Compliance with these restrictions for development in Site A would reduce the previously established significant impact to less than significant. Question D -Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Sites A and B are located ih an urban area currently subject to nghtltghting, However; as described in EIR No. 313, light from new development could add to the nighttime illumination of the immediate area, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a level considered less than significant. Previously Aonroved Mitigation Measures MM I-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property ownerldevelopersholl submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas for the subject building(s) will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential areas. Screening shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspection.(MMP No. 0085 MM 3.11-1, MMP No. 0085 MM 17-1) MM I-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall include a phasing plan for the installation and maintenance of landscaping associated with that building permit and shall be in conformance with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that imi anon rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the a lication of fertilizers and R:1PivjecLSUnaheiml102911nI1ia15WGy Checklist-0522U6.doc B IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (or the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact :Mitigation pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized, The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and otherwater-conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, once a system is available. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed by the Anaheim Resort Pflaintenance District. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.11-2, MMP No. 0085 MM 17-2) MM 1-3 Prior to submittal of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would not create significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., eating areas along Harbor Boulevard, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. If the analysis identified shade andlor shadow impacts would occur and the building setback, architectural massing and landscape requirement provisions set forth in Section 5.0, Design Plan of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, do not function as feasible mitigation measures, additional technical review of the structure(s) will be required. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.11-3, MMP No. 0085 MM 17-3) MM I-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection or whenever established; and on an ongoing basis, the property owneddeveloper shall participate in an assessment district for landscape installation and maintenance if one is established for the area encompassed by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.11-4, MMP No. 0085 MM 17-4) MM I-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the lighting system for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or light-sensitive uses. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the en ineer, this re uirement has been met. MMP No. 0085 3.11-5, MMP No. 0085 MM 17-5 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES --1n determining whether impacLsYo agrlculturel resouroes are significant environmental ' effects,aead agencies may refer to'the Galifrmia Agdcultural Land.Eveluation and Site Asgessment ModeP(1997) prepared by `; the Galifomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use.in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the projeck a) Convert Pdme Farmland, lJnique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ^ ^ ^ Q Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitonng Program of the Galifomia Resources Agency, to non-agdcultural use? b) ConFlict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ^ ^ ^ Q contrect? c) Irnolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ^ ^ ^ Q location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Narrative Summary: Questions A-C - Plo Impact. Data from the State of Galifomia Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that the proposed project sites contain no land which is designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Significance. Rather, both sites are desi Hated as Urban and Built U land defined as land occu ied b structures with a buildin densi of R:1PmieUSWnaheimU02911nItieI5luEy Gbecklisl-052208.aoc 9 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. In addition, the project sites are not in agricultural use or under Williamson Act contracts. This is consistent with the findings in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. No im acts would result from ro'ect im lementation. IIIAIR QUALITY- Whereavailable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or aic pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Wbuld the project: a) ConFlict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ^ ^ Q ^ plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ^ ^ Q ^ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ^ Q ^ ^ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under am applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ^ ^ Q ^ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ^ ^ Q ^ Narrative Summary: Question A -Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed projeot could create significant air quality impacts; however, the project's provision of housing opportunities near existing employment opportunities is consistent with the AOMP and other regional plan strategies to reduce regional vehicular trip volume and length and improve the balance between Jobs and housing. Questions Band D -Less Than Significant Impact. According to the analysis presented in EIR No. 330, the intersection of'Manchester and I-5 Southbound/Katella Avenue in the vicinity of Site A would be considered a Carbon Monoxide (CO) "hot spot", or an area where vehicle congestion has the potential to create a pocket of CO with the potential to exceed the State's 1-hour standard (20 parts per million-ppm); the State's 8-hour standard (g.0 ppm); and/or Federal levels of 35 (1-hour) and 9 (6-hour), respectively. However, based on modeling of future conditions presented in EIR No. 330, the standards would not be exceeded. Therefore, development of Site A with residential uses would not expose the project population to substantial pollutant concentrations so a significant impact would not occur. Question C -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition of existing structures and the construction of new hotel/residential uses. Construction activities associated with the proposed residential uses would be roughly equivalent to those analyzed in EIR'Nos. 313 and 330 for the project sites. According to EIR Nos. 313 and 330, construction and operation of the proposed project would have the potential to exceed AOMD's established air quality significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PMiD) in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce emissions associated with development to the extent feasible. These potential impacts have been identified in the previous EIRs as significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Ovemding Considerations has been adopted addressing this impact. Although the previous EIRs identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional impact in and of itself. Therefore, after application of recommended standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures the proposed project would not result in a significant impact. Question E -less Than Significant Impact. Odors may result during construction from diesel particulate emissions from construction equipment and trucks. However, these odors would be short-term (only occurring during construction activities) and would only be generated during the daytime and weekday hours of operation. Future development could involve minor, odor-generating activities such as barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, etc. However, these types and concentrations of odors are typical of residential communities and are not considered si nificant. R:1PmjedslMahelmll62a\Inidal Study Ghecklisl-062266.dac t0 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion olResidential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Previously Approved Mitigation Measures MM III-1 Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movement for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as practicable. {MMP 0065 MM 3.4-1, MMP No. 0085 MM 3-1) MM III-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property ownerldeveloper shall also implement the following to limit emission from architectural coatings and asphalt usage: a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate. b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent emissions. c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings. (MMP 0085 MM 3.4-2, MMP No. 0085 MM 3-2) MM III-3 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shat(implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall include, but are not limited to: a. Normal wetting procedures {at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable. b. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer's specification, to exposed stock piles. c. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export matenals at (east twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur. d: Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site. e. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets. f. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not cant' dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roadsand staging areas. g. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. h. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed. i. Reduce traffic speeds bn atl unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. j. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts.. k. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. R:\ProjegsVmaheimU02911n111e15lutly Chacklisl-05220fi.EOC ~~ IS/MND The Anaheim Resod Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Ior fhe Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potenkially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact RAitigation I. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable. m. Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. n. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. o. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. (MMP 0085 MM 3.4-3, MMP No. 0085 MM 3-3) MM III-4 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials exported from the project and options for disposal of excess materials. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property ownerldeveloper shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by pdvate firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on project site. (MMP 0085 MM 3.4-4, MMP No. 0085 MM 3-4) MM III-5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owherldeveloper shall comply with all SCAOMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (SARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department. (MMP 0085 MM 3.4-5, MMP No. 0085 MM 3-5) MM III-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors. b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropdate passive solar design. d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water. e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center. (MMP 0085 MM 3.4-8, MMP No: 0085 MM 3-8) MM III-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, implementation of energy conservation techniques (i.e., installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtedng window coatings ordouble-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (MMP 0085a MM 3-~_ R:\PraiegsVmaheiml1029Vnltiel eWdy Checklist-054206.tloc t2 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment Nn. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact. Impact with Impact PAitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would: the project:. a) Havea substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat ^ ^ [] Q modifications, on any species identifiedas a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in locator regional plans, policies; or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ^ ^ ^ Q sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the' California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlandsas ^ ^ ^ Q defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially v~ith the movement ofany native resident or ^ ^ ^ Q migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) ConFlict with any local policiesb~ ordinances protecting biological ^ ^ ^ Q resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ^ ^ ^ Q Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Narrative Summary: Questions A-D - No Impact. The project sites are located within an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim. As determined inEIR Nos. 313 and 330; neither project site is conducive to habitati on by any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No areas within either Site A or Site B are classified as riparian habitat, jurisdictional wetlands, or other sensitive community. Neither project site is used as a migratory wildlife corridor. Question E= No Impact: There are no local policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources that apply to the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. Question F - No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, neither Site A nor Site B is located within a desi noted Natural Communi Conservation Plan area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -.Would the project: ' , a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ^ ^ ^ Q resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines andlor identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic Distdct Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? b) Cause a substantial adverse change ih the sighificahce of an ^ Q ^ ^ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site ^ Q ^ ^ or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interned outside of formal ^ 'Q ^ ^ cemeteries? R:\PmJedsNnehelm~1029\hWelSWtly Checklist-051206:dac 13 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Incursion oI Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant ,.Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Narrative Summary: Question A- No Impact. Consistent with the analyses provided in EIR Nos. 313 and 330, neither Site A nor' Site B contain any known historically significant resources. The state-recommended threshold under which buildings may constitute historic resources is a constructed age df 50 years (Califomia Code. of Regulations Section 4852.d2). Because "there is commonly alive-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made", the Califomia Office of Historic Preservation recommends that buildings 45 years old be considered as potential resources (Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, 1995). While the southern portion of Site A may contain mobile home units that meet or exceed this criterion, by nature, a mobile home unit does not generally qualify as a historic resource due to its mobility. Therefore, no impact is expected to occur Questions B-D -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Due to the location of the project sites within a developed, urban area which has been subject to previous disturbance related to urban development, the potential for discovery of archaeological or paleontological resources or disturbances of human resources is low. While no impacts are anticipated, the following mitigation measures from EIR No. 313 would be required to minimize potential disturbance of as yet undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains. Previously Approved Mitioation Measures MM V-1 Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Services Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:. a The archaeologist must. be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures far temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions ih cooperation with the property ownerldeveloperfoc exploration andlor salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropdate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified', archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City to when the final report will be submitted. (MMP 0085 MM 3.12-1, MMP 0085a MM 1 B-1) MM V-2 Pdor to approval of each grading plan, the property owherldeveloper shalt submit a letter to the Public WorkslEngineering Department, pevelopment Divisioh; identifying the certified paleontologist that had been hired to ensure that the following. actions are implemented: a. The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish prodedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in coo eration with the ro ert owner/develo er fog ex location and/or salvo e. R1Pmlags~Aneheim61029\InWel atutly C~atltlis~-052206.aoc tQ The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues. Potentially Less Than Less Than No SigNffcant Significant Signifcan4 Impact Impact with Impact MltigaYon b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be doriated to an appropriate educational or research institution:. c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City, as to when the final report will be submitted. MMP 0085 MM 3.12-2, MMP 0085a MM 18-2 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most ^ 0 ^ ^ recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ Q ^ ^ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, induding liquefaction? ^ ^ Q ^ iv) Landslides? ^ ^ D ^ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ^ ^ Q c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable; or that would ^ ^ [~ ^ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the. ^ ^ ~ ^ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantal risks to life or Property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks ^ ^ ^ Q or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Narrative Summary: Question A, i and li -Less Than Significant With Pitigation. The project site, as with the entire Southern California region; is subject to secondary effects from earthquakes. While neither project site is Iodated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, both p~ojecfsite5would be subject to seismic ground shaking due to future earthquakes on regionally active faults. Development of the site with residential uses would expose people and structures to potentially adverse effects related to seismic groundshaking. However, compliance with existing codes and regulations, including the Uniform Building Code and Anaheim Municipal Code, and the mitigation. measure VI-1 identified below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Question A, iii and iv -Less Than Significant. According to EIR No. 330, neither site is located within a liquefaction zone or an area subject to earthquake-induced landslides. Impacts related to the exposure of people to earth uake-related hazards such as seismic-related round failure or landslides would be less than si nificant. R:1P~ec6lAnehelml102911ni0el SWtly CheGlisl-05220fi,tloc 15 /5/MNU The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 )or the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant ...Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Question B -Less Than Significant. The majority of Sites A and B are covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., concrete, asphalt) or landscaped area. This impervious condition will continue with implementation of the project; therefore, limited earth material is available for erosion and any impacts would be less than significant. However, implementation of mitigation measure VI-2 would further ensure that potential impacts would not be significant. Question C -Less Than Significant. EIR No. 330 identifies that neither Site A nor Site B are located within or near an established liquefaction zone or an area subject Iandsiides. Additionally, EIR No. 313 states that the project area is generally flat; therefore, ground stability is not an issue. Question D -Less Than Significant. According to EIR No. 330, the City of Anaheim, including the two project sites, contains soils ranging from "low" to "high" expansion potential. However, application of current codes and regulations identified in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 -Land Development and Resources, and adherence to the Uniform Building Code would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Question E- No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or another aitemative waste water disposal system. The project would incorporate the use of city sewer lines and wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur Previously Approved Mitioation Measures MM VI-1 Prior to Approval of Each Grading Plan, The property owner/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a soils and geological report for the area tp be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. All grading shall be in conformance with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (MMP 0085 MM 3.6-1, MMP 0085a MM 5.1) MM VI-2 Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit, The property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared bya civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer (MMP 0085 MM 3.6-2, MMP 0085a MM 5-2) MM VI-3 Prior to Issuance of Each Foundation Permit, The property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer for review and approval which shall investigate the subject foundation excavation to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing: (MMP 0085 MM 3.6-3, MMP 0085a MM 5-3) MM VI-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. (MMP 0085 MM 3.6-4, MMP 0085a MM 5-4) MM VI-5 During grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for ali a licable codes and ordinances to revent erosion. MMP 0085 MM 3.6-6, MM 0085a 5-6 VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would'the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ^ ® ^ ^ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ; b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ^ [.~ ^ ^ reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? R:\PraladsWnaheimS1629\In61a15Wtly Cftackllsl-052206.tloc 16 IS/MNU The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmentallssues Significant Impact Significant with Mitigation Significant Impa Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ^ ^ ^ ~ Q materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which Is included on a list of hazardous materials ^ ^/ ^ ^ sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, asa result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) Fo(a project located within en airport land use plan {Los Alamitos ^ ^ ^ 0 Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport),would the project result h a safety hazard far people residingor working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, ^ ^ ^ ~ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project areal g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere withah adopted ^ ^ [J1 ^ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ^ ^ ^ Q death involving wildlahd fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Narrative Summa Question Aand B -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Both Sites A and B are located along major arterial highways which may be used to transport hazardous materials. Additionally, EIR No. 330 identifies that there are a number of businesses within the City that store and handle hazardous substances. These hazardous materials 'are controlled and permitted by the City of Anaheim Fire Department. Development df the project sites with residential uses may potentially expose the public to a foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. As evaluated in EIR No. 330, these potential impacts would be significant unless mitigation is indorpdrated. Question C - No Impact. Neither Site A nor SiteB is located within one-quarter of a mile of a school; therefore, no impact would occur Question D -Less Than Significant With Mitigation: According to information presented in EIR No. 330, there is only one contaminated site currently'listed within the City of Anaheim and that site, located along Santa Ana Canyon Road,. is not in proximity to either project site: EIR No. 313 identified a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) located at the Service Station at 1OO E. Katella Avenue on the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Haster Street. Soil contamination from this LUST represents a significant impact related to future development of the site with residential uses: However, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant Questions Eand F - No Impact. Neither project site is located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop. Question G -Less Than Significant Impact. Although both Sites A and Bare located along heavily traveled arterial highways within the City of Anaheim, development of the project site with residential uses would not impair implementation pf nor interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan due to the nature of proposed project actions. Question H - No Impact. Sites A and B are located within an urban., developed area and would not be subject to wildland fire risks. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and EIR No. 330, neither site is located within a designated Special Protection Area or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.___ __ R:IProjetlslAnaheimV029VnltielaWdy Cherklisl-05T266.tloc 17 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 far the Inclusion of ResidentiaY Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation MM VII-1 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known or the presence of cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods, in areas of former service stations, in areas known or thought to have been formerly occupied by USTs, and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading in these areas. Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor may be required if soil sampling results are not available, or indicated contamination is present above regulatory guidelines. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-1, MMP 0085a MM 16-1) MM VII-2 Prior to the removal of USTs, the property owners/developers shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department for the removal of such tanks. During removal of USTs, a representative from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department shall be onsite to direct soil sampling. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-2, MMP 0085a MM 16-2) MM VII-3 Ongoing during remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Department. Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Public.:. Utilities Department, Water Services Administration. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-3, MMP 0085a MM 16-3) MM VII-4 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property ownerldeveloper shall submit a plan for review and approval to the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if a previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-4, MMP 0065a MM 16-4), MM VII-5 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area affecting the Califomia Chemical Company, 1772 S. Hasler Street; Arco Service Station, 1037 W. Ball Road; Avis Rent-A-Car System, 1400 S. Harbor Blvd.; Mobil Service Station, 1800 S. Harbor Blvd.; Shell Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Blvd.; Texaco Service Station, 100 W. Katella Avenue; Mobil Service Station, 100 E. Katella Avenue; Shell Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Boulevard; and Arco Service Station, 2101 S. Harbor Boulevard, a qualified environmental professional, retained by the property owner/developer, shall attempt to contact the current and/or known former propertylbusiness owners to obtain information regarding that status of USTs andlor tank closures at these sites. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, and results of these analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation or grading take place in these areas. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-5, MMP 0085a MM 16-5) MM VII-6 Ongoing during demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of Califomia Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. Chapter 22. (MMP 0085 MM 3.10-7, MMP 0085a MM 16-7) R:\PmjetlsW,aheim\1029Vnltiel Study C~etl,lisl-052206.tlw 18 fS/MND The Anaheim Resort SpaGfic Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Potentially Less Than Less Than No Environmental Issues Signiffcant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Currentiv Proposed Mitigation Measures MM VII-7 Priorto issuance of the first residential building permit in a future mixed-use zone, the City of Anaheim shall adopt a "Good Neighbor Program" which requires future residential projects to provide a Notification Letter and prepare a Safety Plan. The Good Neighbor Program shall require that prior to the issuance of a building permit for amixed-use residential project, that the property owner/developer send a Notification Letter to businesses in proximity to the project to inform them of the presence of a sensitive use (i.e., residential land uses). The letter shall request that the mixed-use project property owner/residents be notified of any accident at the nearby businesses that may involve the release of hazardous substances. The Good Neighbor Program shall also require that the future project property owner/developer prepare a Safety Plan which shall be implemented ongoing during project operation that includes all staff training, emergency tools; and first aid provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and ashelter-in-.place program for when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable. MM VII-8 Priorto the final building and zoning inspections for any residential project within 1,000 feet of a use that has the potential to release substantial amounts of airborne hazardous materials (deterfnined-te [according to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) reporting requirements], the project property owner/developer shall submit ashelter-in-place program to the Planning Director for review and approval. The shelter-in-place program shall require the property ownerldeveloper to purchase a subscription to a service that provides "automated emergency notification" to individual residents (subject to meeting minimum standards set by the City) of the project. The shelter-in-place program shall include the following:. o The property owner/developer shall be required to purchase a minimum 10-year subscription to such a service that would include periodic testing (at least annually). o The CC&Rs for each individual project shall require that each property owner and/or project Homeowners Association (HOA): Maintain a subscription following expiratioRof the initial subscription purchased subscription. Maintain in a timely manner the databasr: of resident phone numbers in conjunction with the. service. Provide appropriate agencies (police, fire, other emergency response as identified by the City) with information on how to activate the notification via the service provider. o The CC&Rs for each individual project shall retauire that each resident provide the property owner/HOA with a current phone number for the residence and/or individual residents; this would include timely notification following the sale of a unit and would require notification if the unit were rented or leased or sub'ectfo an other than a inbccu anc . a"•. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ^ Q ^ ^ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially.. ^ ^ 0.. ^ with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ^ ^ Q ^ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0.:1PmjedsWneheiml1029Vni4el5Wtly Checkllslda2206.doc t9 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mltlgation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantiallyalterthe existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ^ ^ Q ~ ^ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- oroff--site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of ^ ^ [~] ^ existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ Q ^ ^ g) Place housirig within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a ^ ^ Q ^ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other Flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year Flood hazard area structures which would ^ ^ Q ^ impede or redirect Flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ^ ^ Q ^ involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by selche or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ [/( k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from ^ Q ^ ^ areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, deliveryareas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? I) Substantially degrade waterquality by discharge which affects the ^ Q ^ ^ beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? Narrative Summary: Question A, F, K, and L -Less Than Signi£cant With Mitigation. Although both Sites A and B are almost entirelydeveloped with urban Lses {with the exception of a small vacant, undeveloped parcel on Site B), construction activities and development activities would increase the potential for stormwater runoff to transport water contaminants into the storm drain system, thus contributing to the degradation of water quality and the potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Consistent with the analysis presented in EIR No. 33D, compliance with City policies regarding stbrmvvater runoff would ensure compliance with Federal standards established by the Federal Clean Water Act. Application of mitigation presented in EIR No. 313 and 330 would also reduce water quality impacts. Therefore, impacts related to the violation of water quality standards would be less than significant Question B -Less Than Significant. Development of the project sites with residential uses would increase the demand for domestic water supply. Sites A and B would both connect to the City's water system, of which the ~I water supply is up to three-fourths from local groundwater'sources. Although the proposed project would not substantially.increase the demand on groundwater supplies, implementation of applicable local, state; ahd federal regulations would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. ' Questions C, D, and E -Less Than Significant. As stated previously, both Sites A and B are located within an urban, developed area. On site drainage is currently directed to existing storm drain facilities. Because the project would not substantially increase the amount of impermeable surface area over existing conditions, significant impacts would not occur related to drainage and the capacity of the stone drain system. Additionally, implementation of the project would not create any uses that would substantially increase the amount or rate of surface runoff be and existin conditions. R:\PmjaclsbinahalmUOP9\InI0a15lutly Checklist-05220fi.tlw The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion of Residential Uses Envfronmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with impact Mltlgation Questions Gand H -Less Than Significant. According to EIR No. 330, both project sites are located within Zone X 500 defined as 100-Year (with flooding below one foot) to 500-Year Flood Zone. Development of the project sites with residential uses would potentially expose people and structures to flooding; however, the risk of flooding would not be associated with the 100-year flood except for flooding below one foot. This would not represent a significant impact. Question I -Less Than Significant. According to EIR No. 330, the project sites are located within the general limits of the flood impact zone associated with Prado Dam failure; therefore, development of the project sites with residential uses would expose the population and structures to the risk of flood inundation associated with the potential failure of Prado Dam. However, compliance with existing codes and regulations would ensure that this potential impact would be less than significant Question J - No Impact. The project sites are not located near any large water bodies; therefore, there is no potential for inundation of either project site by seiche. Additionally, both sites are located within relatively flat, developed areas of the City. They would not be subject to mudflows: Previously Approved Mitigation Measures MM VIII-1 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first building permit; whichever occurs first, the property ownerldeveloper shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan.. (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public WorkslEngineering Department, Development Services Division., and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. The Master Plan shall. include, but not be limited to, the following items:.. a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrologyand hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year stone; and, b. A delineation bf the improvements to be implemented for control of project-generated drainage and runoff: (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-1, MMP No 0085a MM 6-1) MM VIII-2 Prior to approval of a grading plan the property ownerldeveloper shall submit for review and approval of the City Engineer,. a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures specified ih the Appendix 7 of the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan detailing implementation bf BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project (when the project Nana belowgrade loading dock, for example); the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); antl, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-2, MMP No 0085a MM 6-2) MM VIII-3 Prior to approval ofgrading plan or issuance of demolition permit; and, during clearing, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Ccnstruction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the City Engineer. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-3, MMP Nb 0085a MM 6-3) MM VIII-4 During project operations, the property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited tp, private streets and parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the stone drains shall be prohibited. (MMP No.' 0085 MM 3.7-4, MMP No OOS5a MM 6-0) ft:lProietlsWneheimlJp2911niUel Stutly Checklist-061106.tlac The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sfgnlflcant Significant Significant ..Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation MM VIII-5 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owneddeveloper shall submit aletter from a licensed landscape architect to the City, certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-5, MMP No 0085a MM 6-5) MM VIII-6 The property owner/developer shall install piping onsite with project water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when is becomes available from the County Sanitation District of Oran a Coun .MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-6, MMP No 0065a MM 6-6 'IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the protect a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ Q b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an ^ ^ Q ^ agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ^ ^ ^ Q community conservation plan? Narrative Summary: Question A -Less Than Significant. Development of the project sites with residential uses would require demolition of existing uses, such as commercial areas in both Sites A and B and a mobile home park in the southern portion of Site A. The removal of these land uses would constitute physically dividing established communities; however, implementation of the proposed project would serve to unify development within the area. The provision of residential uses would off-set the impact associated whit division of the existing residential community found within the mobile home park. The addition of residential uses would also serve as a transition between existing residential uses in the perimeters of the ARSP: This is expected to contribute to the ultimate buildout and success of the ARSP area Question B -Less Than Significant. Development of the project sites with residential uses would conflict with existing land use designations established in both the City ofAnaheim General Plan and the ARSP. Through the proposed amendment of the General Plan Commercial Recreation designation and the establishment of a residential overlay applicable to Sites A and B of the C-R District, the proposed project would allow development of residential uses to compliment the established development criteria of the Anaheim Resort, thus creating a uniform development area that will be consistent with the area's General Plan and Zoning designations:. Question C- No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan; neither project site is located within a designated habitat conservation plan or natural community wnservation plan area. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with any such plan. Previously Approved Mitigation Measures MM IX-1 Prior to apprdval of any final site plah, final site plans will be reviewed for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area for consistency with the Specific Plan (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.7-3, MMP No. 0085a MM 1-1 X MINERAL RESOURCES --Would tfte:project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ^ ^ ^ Q would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?. b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource ^ ^ ^ [~] recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a9PmjacLal4naheim1Je29VnI0el Slutly Checkllst-052206.doc 22 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Jor the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact PAltigation Narrative Summary: Questions A and B- No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the project is not located in a regionally significant aggregate resources area or a designated Mineral Resources Zone (MR-Z). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as there are no known mineral resources or mineral resource recove sites on or near the ro'ect site. No im act would occur. XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Ezpdsure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ^ Q standardsestablished in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome ^ Q ^ ^ vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noiselevels ih the ^ ^ Q ^ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic Increase to ambient noise levels ^ Q ^ ^ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos ^ ^ ^ Q Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Fora project within the vicinity oEa private airstdp, heliport or helistop, ^ ^ ^ Q would the projecEexpose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Narrative Summarvc Questions A, 8, and D - 4ess Than Significant With Mitigation. Short-term constructioh activities related to the build-out of the ARSP area, including development of Sites A and B with residential uses, would potentially expose the population, both within and adjacent to the project sites, to noise in excess of established thresholds and groundbome noise and vibration. These noise and vibration impacts would be temporary in nature. EIR No. 313 identifies these construction-related impacts as significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted in conjunction with EIR certification. However, in accordance with the Anaheim Noise Ordinance; construction noise is exempt from compliance with the City-established noise thresholds between the hours of 7:00'a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. Construction is not allowed at any time on Sundays or Federally recognized holidays. Therefore; impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation. As indicated in EIR No. 313, the major source of noise in the ARSP area is vehicular traffic along the City's roadways and I-5. According to the analysis presented in EIR No. 330; Site A is located entirely within the 60 CNEL future freeway noise contour from I-5 andportions of the site are within the 65 and 70 CNEL future noise contours. Specifically, Katella Avenue in the vicinity of Site A is expected to generate noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. Therefore, development of Site A with residential uses would expose the resident population to ambient noise levels in excess of City established standards. Implementation of the recommended mitigation would reduce ' these potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible for the resident population; however, the impact to the proposed residential uses along Katella Avenue would remain significant. This impact pteviously identified in ElR No. 330 as a significant and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted in conjunction with EIR certification. Although the previous EIR identified this impact as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional impact in and of itself. Therefore, after application of recommended mitigation measures the proposed project would not result in a si nificant im act. R:\PmjedsWnaheiml192911n19aI51utly ChaGlial-0SPZo6.doc 23 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for fhe Inclusicn of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Sign(ficant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Question C -Less Than Significant. Similar to the previously approved visitor-serving land uses evaluated ii EIR Nos. 313 and 330, the increase in traffic volumes associated with the proposed residential uses would incrementally contribute to the ambient noise environment. This limited contribution would not represent a significant impact. Questions Eand F - No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private or public airstrip, heliport, or helistap. Previousiv Aaaroved Mitigation Measures MM XI-1 During demolition, grading, and construction, noise generated by construction activity shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Level of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-1, MMP No 0085a MM 4-1) MM XI-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, an 8-foot-high perimeter or portable construction barrier shall be provided by the property ownerldeveloperelong boundaries of construction areas which have noise sensitive land use adjacent to them to minimize noise impacts. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3:5-2, MMP No 0085a MM 4-2) MM XI-3 During construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-3, MMP No 0085a MM 4-3) MM XI-4 Prior to submittal of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements; ifany; shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-4, MMP No OD85a MM 4-4) MM XI-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are adjacent to noise-sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-5, MMP No 0085a MM 4-5) MM XI-6 Engine noise from sweeping equipment used in any parking facilities located adjacent to residential areas shall be mufFled subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department, Gede €aferserHent Community Preservation Division. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-6, MMP No OOBSa MM 4- 8) MM XI-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking structures adjacent to residential areas will be reduced by the provision of conveniehfaccess to parking facilities, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce fire squealing, and tiering a parking facility to provide greater distance to the receptor. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.5-7, MMP No 0085a MM 4-7) MM XI-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards. (MMP No. 0122 MM 5.10-1) R:1Pro~apsVmaheimU629\Initial SWtly Chacklisl-062206.tloc 24 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for fhe Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact... Impact with Impact Mitigation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ^ ^ ~ ^ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ^ ^ Q ^ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displacesubstantisl numbersof people, necessitating the ^ ^ - Q ^ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Narrative Summary: Question A -Less Than Significant. As proposed, the project would provide housing units in an area currently designated in the City of Anaheim General Pian and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan for visitor-serving uses. Sites A and B are both located in The Anaheim Resort which is an employment-rich area; therefore, the demand for employment associated with the population growth from the project would be adequately served through existing available employment opportunities in the area. Implementation of the project would assist in balancing the ratio of jobs to housing. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact related to population and housing., Questions Band C -Less Than Significant. The southern portion of Site A js currently located within a MHP overlay zone and is developed with a mobile home park. Similar to the development of the site with visitor-serving uses as analyzed and approved as part of EIR tJo. 313, implementation of the proposed project would displace these housing uses and the residents occupying the mobile homes. The displacement of mobile home park residences could not occur until the requirements of state law pertaining to the closure of mobile home parks were met. In addition, prior to the conversion of the mobile home park properties, the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code 18:26.070 "Conversion and Reclassification from the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone" would also need to be fulfilled. Therefore, impacts associated with displacement of existing housing and people would be less than si nificanL XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES =Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or,physically altered governmental facilities, needfor new or pftysically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant erivironmental impacts, in orcler to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ^ [J1 ^ ^ Police protection? ^ Q ^ ^ Schools? ^ Q. ^ Parks? ^ Q.. ^ ^ Other public facilities? ^ Q ^ ^ Narrative Summary: Question A- Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As identified in EIR No. 313, development of the project site with visitor-serving uses would increase the number of service calls and required responses creating new demands on fire and police protection personnel and resources, The proposed amendment to the ARSP would allow for the development of residential uses in areas previously restricted to non-residential uses.. The proposed residential uses would create a similar demand for fire protection and police protection in comparison to what was previously assumed with approved land uses. Additionally, EIR No. 330 acknowledges that the redistribution of population into areas where there are currently only limited residential uses could necessitate the reassignment of certain kinds of resources pertaining to fire and olice services. Prior to im lementation of recommended miti ation measures, the im acts to fire and olice R9PmJeclslMe~eimV02911nI11eI5Wtly Checklist-052206.tlac 2$ The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues, Significant Signifcant Significant ...Impact Impact with Impact PAitigation protection would be considered significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures, as well as compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 16.41, Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee, would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant Development of Site A and Site B with residential uses would introduce school-aged children to the area Therefore, the project would impact the Anaheim City School District and Anaheim Union High School District serving the project site by increasing the demand placed do school district facilities, staff and resources. According to EIR No. 330, both school districts were reported as exceeding available seating capacity; therefore, the addition of project-generated students would represent an impact. However, per Senate Bili (SB) 50, this impact cannot be considered significant. Pursuant to SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995), there are three ways to determine funding levels for school districts: The default method allows school districts to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by that development and receive a 50 percent match from State bond money.. Therefore, the payment of developer fees will offset the costs to each District of providing educational facilities to these students. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure below will further reduce potential impacts, The proposed residential Uses would create a new demand for recreational facilities such as parks. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, Figure G-1; neither site is located within a designated Park Deficiency Area However, this is likely due td the fact that no residences currently exist in the project area (with the exception of the two mobile home parks). According to Figure G-4, there are no existing park facilities in the vicinity of either Sites A or B. The nearest facility is Ponderosa Park, a 9-acre neighborhood park located on the southeast of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, just outside the intended service area df the park (greater than one-half mile). Therefore; the proposed residential uses would create a new demand for recreational facilities, thus resulting in a significant impact on the City of Anaheim parks system. This impact, however, would be reduced through provision of parklands, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of the two based on the actual square footage of residential development: The addition of residential uses would create an increase in demand for library facilities, materials, circulation, computer access, and remote access to resources. According to EIR No. 330, the City of Anaheim currently has a mid level service standard of 0.5 square feet of library facility per capita. Through payment of negotiated. developer fees based on the actual square footage of residential development, if required, this impactwould be less than significant.. Previously Approved Mitioatioh Measures' MM XIII-1 Prior to approval of each final siteplah and issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas). {MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.2-1, MMP No 0085a MM 8-1) MM XIII-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit far a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit television monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.2-2, MMP No 0085a MM 8-2) MM XIII-3 Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide private security on the. premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review and approval of the Police Department: The use of security patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.2-3, MMP No 0085a MM 8-3) MM XIII-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department (MMP. No 0085 MM 3 9.2-4 MMP No OOBSa MM 8-4) RiPro~eds~AnaheimllU29\IMOeISWdy C~edlisl-05220fi.EOC 26 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant' Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation MM XIII-5 Prior to Commencement of Structural Framing on Each Parcel or Lot, Onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property ownerldeveloperas required and approved by the Fire Department. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.1-1, MMP No 0085a MM 7-1) MM XIII-6 Prior to Approval of Each Grading Plan, The property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.1-2, MMP No 0085a MM 7-2) MM XIII-7 Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit; to be Implemented Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, Plans shall indicate that all buildings; exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property ownerldeveloper in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.1-3, MMP No 0085a MM 7-3) MM XIII-8 Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit, Plans shall be submitted to ensure that development is in accordance with the City pf Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including: a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads. b. Bridges and underground structures td be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75.,000 pounds. o. All underground tunnels sfiall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at ail entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be rtecessary by the Fire Department. d. Adequate off-site putilic fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan Area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer: The precise number, types and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart. e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain ih the water system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.1-4, MMP No 0085a MM 7-4) MM XIII-9 Prior tc Issuance of Each Building Permit, The property owner/developer shalt submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with fequired fire flow. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.1-7, MMP No 0085a MM 7-5) MM XIII-10 Prior to Approval of Water Improvement Plans, The water supply system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire Department requirements. (MMP No 0085a MM 7-6) MM XIII-11 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, Projects shall be reviewed by the City of Anaheim on an individual basis and will be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits .are issued (i.e., impact fees, etc.) or if an initial stutly is prepared and the City determines the impact to be significant, then the project will be required to comply with appropriate mitigation measures R:1Pm~adsWnehelm4029\In16e15Wtly Checklist-0522afi.tlac 27 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 !or the lnclasion of Residential Lses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant ..Impact' Impact with Impact Mitigation MM XIII-12 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.1-8) MM XIII-13 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code Section 53080 (schools) to the Building Division of the Planning Department. (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.5-1, MMP No 0085a MM 10-1) Currently Proposed Mitigation Measures MM XIII-14 The City will work cooperativelywith school districts to identify sites fdr new schools and school ex ansion. XN.RECREATION --Would the project: a) Increase the use pf existing neighborhood and regional parks or other ^ ^ ~ .recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facpitles or require thebonstruction or expansion ^ ^ [~ of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Narrative Summary: Questions Aand B -Less Than Significant. The proposed amendment to the ARSP would allow for the development of residential uses in areas previously restdcted to non-residential uses. The residential uses would create a demand for recreational facilities such as parks. According to the City ofAnaheim General Plan, Figure G-1, neither site is located within a designated Park Deficiency Area. However, this is likely due to the fact that no residences currently exist in the project area (with the exception of the two mobile home parks).. According to Figure G-4, there are no existing park facilities in the vicinity of either Site A or Site B. The nearest facility is Ponderosa Park, a 9-acre neighborhood park located on the southeast of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, just outside of the intended service area of the park (greater than one-half-mile). Therefore, the proposed residential uses would create a hew demand for recreational facilities; however, the impact would be reduced through provision of parklands by complying with the City's park dedication ordinance relative to parks and trails locations, sizes and design criteria, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of the two based on the actual s uare foots a of residential develo ment. XV TRANSPORTATIONIiRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ^ ^ 0 ^ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.; result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard ^ ^. ~ ^ established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including eithecan increase ^ ^ 0 ^ in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ^ ^ Q curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ 0 ^ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ 0 R:\PmledsWneheimW02911ni9el51utly Ghecklisl-052296.tloc 28 1S/MN~ The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Envfronmentai Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact fVlitigation g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ^ ^ ^' Q alternative transportation (e.g., bus stopsYroutes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc. ? Narrative Summary: Questions Aand B -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The increase in local population generated through implementation of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic: However, as the project description states, the residential densities of Sites A and B are limited to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel density. This environmental equivalent takes into consideration the limited traffic capacity and was designated and evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. Therefore, the analysis of the proposed project's impacts to existing traffic load and the street system capacity would be consistent with the findings contained in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. According to EIR No. 313, the addition of project-related traffic would significantly impact the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values at the intersections of Raster Street and Katella Avenue, and Manchester Avenue and Katella Avenue in Year 2010 during the a,m. and p.m. peak hours. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce the impact related to the Manchester Avenue and Katella Avenue intersection to less than significant. However, the impact related to the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Raster Street and Katella Avenue would remain significant. This potential impact has been identified in EIR No. 313 as significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted addressing this impact. Due to the use of the traffic generation equivalency, the impact would be no greater than anticipated with development of resort land uses. Per code requirements, a traffic analysis will be prepared for any development with residential uses. Question C -Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 330, proposed project actions would not significantly impact air traffic patterns. Question D -Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not involve modifications to the circulation network; therefore, no impact would occur related to hazards associated with roadway design features or incompatible uses. Question E -Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with the analysis presented in EIR No. 33D on page 5-320, the City's "Circulation Element has been designed to provide and maintain a comprehensive circulation system within the City at buildout." Therefore, no significant impacts related to emergency access would occur. Question F -Less Than Significant Impact. Although no development proposals for Sites A and B have been submitted, the future property owner/developer would be required to comply with the parking standards established in the'Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, potential impacts related to parking would not be significant. Question G - No Impact. Development of Sites A and B with residential uses would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Question F -Less Than Significant Impact. Although no development proposals for Sites A and B have been submitted, the future propertybwner/developerwould be required to comply with the parking standards established in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, potential impacts related to parking would not be significant. Question G - No Impact. Development of Sites A and B with residential uses would not conflict with any policies, tans, or ro rams su ortn alternative trans ortation. R:1PmjedslAnaheimV029Vni4a15Wtly ChedJlsl-052205.tlac The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation MM XV-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 qr more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. a. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at LOS E or worse, prior to issuance of whichever building permit necessitates an improvement(s), the construction contract for said improvement(s) must have been awarded; and, prior to final building and zoning inspections far the applicable building permit, the improvement(s) shall be accepted by the City: The extent of improvements required for full buildout of the Anaheim Resort are listed in Tables 3.3-2, 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of this Section (Section 3.3 of EIR No 313). The property owner/developer shall have the option to: (1) wait until the improvement(s) is constructed by others or, (2) construct or pay the actual total costs of the improvement(s) which. shall include the payment for consultant/contractor services for preliminary and final engineering, soils analysis; right-of-way acquisition, demolition, relocation, construction and inspection, and any other related expenses. The City Engineer may make the determination that Option (2) may be waived based on the supporting environmental analysis contained in this EIR (EIR No 313) or in supplemental environmental documentation. The City may have the ability to reimburse for the additional expense beyond the property ownerldeveloper's fair share contribution of improvement(s) based on the collection of other transportation improvement fees or funding throughbther public sources.. However, if a reimbursement or fair share program has not been established by the City, to the extent that the property owner/developers costs exceed their "fair share" contribution far said improvement{s), the property owner/developer may petition the City Council to establish a reimbursement agreement or benefit district to include other benefiting properties. All costs associated with the establishment of any such agreement/district shall be at the expense of the property owner/developer. b. If the updated model demonstrates the LOS E will not be exceeded, no additional transportation improvement(s) will be required of the proposed development. In this instance, the property. ownerldeveloper shall, prior to the issuance of each building permit, pay to the City of Anaheim all applicable transportation fees in an amount determined by City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-1) MM XV-2 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS "E" or "F" depending on the location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service at intersections within Anaheim and surrounding :municipalities for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City's Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15-2 of Mitigaticn Monitoring Program No. 122. (MMP No. 0085a, MM 2-1) R:\ProfanslFnaheimuo¢aVnWel atutly Chart,liebo522o6.tloc 30 /S/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (or the Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues ~ `-`~~-~`~~' -"` ~~"~~ -"` ~~"~~ Significant Significant Significant impact with Impact PAitigatfon MM XV-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and"Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and, participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-2) MM XV-4 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-3, MMP No 0085a MM 2-2) MM XV-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate fn a clean fuel shuttle program, if established; and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation NetworklTransportation Management Association. The property ownerldevelopersholl enter into an agreement with the City committing to such program and association and said agreement shall be recorded on the property prior to final inspection. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-4, MMP No. 0085a MM 2-3) MM XV-6 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the property owneddeveloper shall coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with tha Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) and shall implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-5, MMP No. 0085a MM 2-4) MM XV-7 Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-7, MMP No. 0085a MM 2-5) MM XV-8 Prior to final :building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shaltimplement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. Objectives bf the TDM prdgram shall be: • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin and Average Vehicle Ridership.. . A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employee commute options include, but are not limitedto, the following: I • Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as food, retail, and other services be provided. • Ridesharing. A computer listing of all employee members tie developed for the purpose of providing a "matching" of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. A computer listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who five in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool. • Transit Pass. Southern Califdmia Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the R:1PrgedsWneheimU029Vni0el SWtly Cherklisl-05T2a6.000 31 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for fhe Inclusion ofResidenfial Uses Environmental Issues Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation No Significant .Impact Impact e Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile: Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. o Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting td work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. < Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentives program for ridesharing and other altemative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. e Stagger shifts:. o Develop a "compressed work week" program, whidh provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees.. e Explore the possibility of a "telecommuting"program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g. computer with modem). Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. e Access. Preferential access tb high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. e Financial Incentives for Ridesharing andlor Public Transit. (Currently, Federal law provides tax- free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools).- e Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. e Special "Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. TickeUpasses to special events, vacations, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. e Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips: (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.3-8, MMP No. 0085a MM 2-6) MM XV-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property ownerldeveloper; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefits districts which have been established. (MMP No. 0085a MM 2-7) MM XV-10 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property ownerldeveloper shall:irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property. (MMP No. 0085a MM 2-8) MM XV-11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, for a hotel or motel development in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area, which exceeds 75 rooms per gross acre, the property ownerldeveloper shall enter into an agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and City Attorney's office to implement TDM measures sufficient to maintain actual trip generation from the development at a level that does not exceed the number of trips assumed by the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model:(MMP No. 0085a R:1PmJeclsl4neheimU929\In19aI5Ndy Cherkllsl-052206.dac 32 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (or the Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than Plo Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation xVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS'=Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ^ ^ ® ^ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ^ Q ^ ^ treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifcant environmental effects?. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ^ ^ [JJ ^ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including ^ ^ Q ^ .large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider whidh ^ Q ^ ^ serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to. ^. ^ Q ^ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal; State; and local statutes and regulations related ^ ^ ~ ^ to solid waste? h) Result in a need far new systems or supplies, or substantial ^ ^ Q' ^ alterations related to electricity? i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ^ ^ Q ^ alterations related to natural gas? j) Result in a naedfor newsystems or supplies, or substantial ^ ^ Q ^ alterations related to telephone service? k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial ^ ^ 0 ^ alterations related to television service/rece lion? Narrative Summary: Question A- Less Than Significant. As stated in EIR No. 330 on page 5-236, the City of Anaheim, including the two project sites, is served by a "comprehensive sanitary sewer system and no wastewater is discharged which would impact the quality of surface water or groundwater resources." Therefore, implementation of the project would not exceed the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) wastewater treatment requirements. Questions Band E -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Based on the water consumption figures. presented in EIR No. 330, residential land uses demand more water than non-residential uses. and subsequently generate more wastewater than non-residential uses. As stated in the project description, the residential densjties of Sites A and B are limited to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel density. This environmental equivalent takes into consideration the limited sewer capacity and was designated and evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. Therefore, the analysis of the proposed project's impacts to the water supply and distribution facilities and wastewater collection and treatment facilities would be consistent with the findings contained in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. R:\PmletlsNnahaimVe29\InltielaWOy C~ackliel-0SZYofi.tloc 33 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for fhe Inclusion o/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Pflitigation According to EIR No. 330, Site B would require water supply improvements to serve proposed land'Iises. Several water facility improvements identified in EIR No. 313 as mitigation measures have been installed; however, additional improvements would still be required. Specifically, pipeline improvements detailed in EIR No. 330 would be required to meet fire flow requirements. Anew parallel 12- or 16-inch line will need to be extended down Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood to Chapman Avenue and additional looping may be required to strengthen the distribution systems in the area. Implementation of recommended mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of water facilities to a less than significant level. With regard to wastewater facilities, the increased wastewater flow associated with development of Sites A and B may trigger the need to implement improvements. Specifically, the improvements recommended in the City's South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study would be required. Additionally, in the vicinity of Site B a replacement sewer 15 to 24 inches in diameter would be required along Wilken Way, Harbor Boulevard, and Chapman Avenue connecting to the existing Orange County Sanitation District trunk sewers in Ninth Street or Euclid Avenue. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of wastewater facilities to a less than significant IeveL Question C -Less Than Significant. Sites A and B are both located within developed areas of the City and are cunently served by the City's stormdrain system. Development of the project sites with the inclusion of residential uses would increase the Intensity of development on both project sites; however, the amount of stormwater runoff would be similar to existing conditions. No significant impact related to the storm water collection system would occur. Question D -Less Than Significant. As stated previously in response to Questions B and E, development of the project sites with the inclusion of residential uses would create an increased demand for water. However, the increased water demand would not exceed the demand increase projected for previously approved land uses: Therefore, the proposed project would be environmentally equivalent to the previously approved project. According to EIR No. 330, the City's overall demand for water does not exceed the plannetl future demand; therefore, the potential impact related to water supply would not be significant. Although the no significant impacts have been identified, mitigation is recommended to encourage water conservation.. Questions Fand G -Less Than Significant. As stated previously, the allowable density of the residential projects would be limited to what would produce an environmental equivalent to the project as previously approved. According to the analysis presented in EIR No. 330, the City's projected solid waste generation, including generation from the two project sites, is less than what was previously assumed and planned for; therefore, no significant impacts would occur provided that the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department continues to expand landfill capacity consistent with adopted County growth projections and the City continues to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 939. Question H -Less Than Significant. The Anaheim Public Utilities Department's Electrical Division currently provides electrical service to the project sites. Development of the sites with the inclusion of residential uses could create an increase in the demand for electricity; however, this increase in demand would be partially offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use electricity. The resultant increase in demand would result in a significant impact. However, implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant as well as encourage the conservation of electricity,. Question I -Less Than Significant. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently provides natural gas service to the project sites. Development of the sites with the inclusion of residential uses could create an increase in the demand for' natural gas; however, this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use natural gas. Additionally, in EIR No. 313, it was identified that SCGC has indicated that "they will be capable of meeting the energy needs of future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area without adverse impacts on surrounding uses." Although the no significant impacts have been identified, miti ation is recommended to encoura a ever conservation. ' R:1Pm~eclslMehalml1019\Initiel alutly Chackllel-05Y206.EOC 34 The Anaheim Resort Speci(c Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion c/Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than Pdo Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impac4 Mitigation Question J -Less Than Significant. SBC currently provides telephone service to the project sites. Development of the sites with residential uses would create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system; however, this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing. uses which currently use telephone service. SBC or the current service provider would be able to adequately meet the anticipated demand. No significant impacts would occur. Question K -Less Than Significant. Adetphia currently provides cable television service to the project sites. Development ofthe sites with residential uses would create an increase in the demandbn cable television service; however, this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use cable television service. Adelphia or the current service provider would be able to adequately meet the anticipated demand. No significant impacts would occur. Previously Approved Mitigation Measures MM XVI-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit {to be implemented prior to filial building and zoning inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during project operation), the property owner/ developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department plans for review and approval which shall ensure thatwater conservation measures are incorporated. Among the water conservation measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property ownerldeveloper, to the extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems. • Use of waterway recirculation systems. • Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals. • Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves. • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors. • Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels. Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water-using appliances. • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest. • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation. • Use of water conserving landscape plant matedals wherever feasible. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.8-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 11-1) MM XVI-2 Prior to Approval of First Subdivision Map or Issuance of First Grading Pennif or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of Anaheim, to the satisfaction of Utilities Department and City Attorney's Office, to guarantee the property owner/developer's participation ih water system improvements necessitated by the project. The agreement shall contain provisions requiring the property ownerldeveloper to pay or cause to'be paid its fair share funding for said improvements and/or construct said improvements, if determined to be necessary by the Utilities Department, with reimbursement by other beneficiaries in accordance with the Utility's Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Costs shall include the payment for consultantlcontractor services for the preliminary engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way acquisition, demolition, construction and inspection, and any other related expenses. Further, the property owner/developer shall submit an engineering report and phasing plan for review and approval by the Utilities Department setting forth the extent and timing of the water system improvements necessitating by the project for use in implementing the agreement. The property owner/developer shall at all times perform its obligations as set forth in said agreement. Water system improvements identified in the environmental documentation for buildout of the Anaheim Resort, which the property owner/developer may be required to participate in, include: a. The existing 8-inch diameter pipe in Clementine Street from Katella Avenue to €ieedraaa Disney .Way shall be replaced !~ a.20-inch diameter pipe. R:\ProleclsVmaheim\1029\IniGal5lutly Checklist-052206.EOC 35 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 (or the Inclusion o(Residantial Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b. The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in F{eedmah Disney Way from Clementine Street to Harbor Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. c. The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in €reedraart Disney Way from Clementine. Street to Harbor Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. d. The 12-inch pipe in Katella Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. e. The existing10-inch diameter pipe in Harbor Boulevard from 1=reedrnaa Disney Way to Harbor Boulevard north of Manchester Avenue shall be replaced by a 16-inch diameter pipe. f. An additional water well shall be constructed near the intersection of Clementine Sheet and F~eedrhar• Disney Way. g. The existing 14-inch and 12-inch diameter pipes in West Street from Katella Avenue to Ball Road shall be replaced by a 20-inch pipe. (Note: To implement this mitigation measure, the City has adopted the Anaheim Resort Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15E of the Water Rates, Rules and Regulations). Compliance with this Fee Program by the property owner/developer (per Resolution No. 95R-140, effective September 1, 1995) shall satisfy the requirement of this Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing arrangements). (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.6-2, MMP No. 0085a MM 11-2) MM XVt3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.63, MMP'No. 0085a MM 113) MM XVI-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or Tess by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer's service. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.6-4, MMP No. 0085a MM 11-4) MM XVI-5 Prior to Approval of a Final Subdivision Map, or Issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs First, The property ownerldeveloper shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9:6-5, MMP No. p085a MM 11-5) MM XVI-6 Prior to Approval of a Final Subdivision Map, or Issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs First, The property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:.. a. If the specific developmenUredevelopment does not increase or redirect current or historic storm water quantitieslflow, then the property owner's/developer s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect propertieslstructures fora 100-year storm frequency. b. Ifthe specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the'cument or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property ownerldeveloper shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney's Office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit-, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. The property ownerldeveloper shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures fora 100-year storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building R:\Pm~edsUna~eImU0P911ni1ial Sluey Checklist-05420fi.EOC 36 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Tor the Inclusion o/Residential Uses EnVIPOnmental ISSIleS r~~rn wavy ,-coo rnm, ~caa n,m, ,ae Significant Significant Signfficant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and; (4) construction estimates.. (Note: The City has adopted the Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fee Program for the South Central City Area. Compliance with this Fee Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No.5491 and Resolution No. 95R-61 dated April 18, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure). (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.8-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 13-1) MM XVI-7 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvements (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary sewer deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:. a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) does not increase flows or changes points of discharge, then the property owner's/developer's responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvements (Fee) Program, b. If the developmentlredevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currenty deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge, andlor (2) increase flows or changes points of discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney's office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study:: The property owner/developer shall be required to Install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the buiidinglstructure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property/owner shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owners/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall contain; at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and (4) construction estimates. The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total buildout of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e. each hotel). (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.7-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 12-1) MM XVI-8 Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit; to be Implemented Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Pubtic Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989; as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to: a:~P~~e~isv+~ena~muozs~mmaiswey cnaara-0snos.eo~ 37 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 /or the Inclusion o(Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than PJo Significant Signif)cant Significant ,Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities. " b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal; State and City regulation for hazardous material disposal. d. Participating in the City of Anaheim's "Recycle Anaheim" program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City. In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but not limited to: a. Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins. b. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. c. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing. d. Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.. e. Prohibiting curbside pick-up. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.3-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 9-1) MM XVI-9 Ongoing During Project Operation, The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer. a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and packaging. b: Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. c. Collection of office paper for recycling.. d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.3-2, MMP No. 0085a MM 9-2) MM XVI-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Division in order to review above Title 24 measures to incorporate into the project design including energy efficient designs. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.9-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 14-1) MM XVI-11 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property ownerldeveloperskall implement energy- saving practices in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following: o Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems controlled by a computerized management system including features such as a variable air volume system, a 100-percent outdoor air economizer cycle, sequential operation of air conditioning equipment in accordance with building demands, isolation of air conditioning to any selected floor or floors.... e Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy. a Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights. m Use of TS lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide orhigh-pressure sodium for outdoor lighting and parking lots (MMP No 0085 MM 3.9.9-2 MMP No. 0085a MM 14-2) R:1PmiedsWneheim1J02911nitiel Slutly Checklist-062206.doc 38 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclarsion o/Residentlal Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant SlgniFcant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation MM XVI-12 Prior to issuance of each building permit for any buildings requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be fnstalled in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.9-3, MMP No. 0085a MM 14-3) MM XVI-13 Prior to installation of any transformers, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Utilities Department; Electrical Engineering Division, that the transformers are PCB free. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.9-4, MMP No. 0085a MM 14-4) MM XVI-14 The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are intended to assist in the selection of the most energy-efficient water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies prior to each final building and zoning inspection. (MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.10-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 14-5) MM XVI-15 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the propertypwner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the project, to the extent feasible. (MMP No. 0085a MM 19-1) MM XVI-16 New developments with exteriors over 75 feet in height shall submit a baseline study prior to issuance of building permits and a final study within six months after building completion. A studybfarea television reception shall be undertaken by the property owner/developer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project creates a significant impact on broadcast television reception at local residences and other existing hotels/restaurants or other businesses, a signal booster or relay system shall be installed by the property owner/developer immediately on the roof of the tallest project building to restore television reception to its original condition. In no event shall heights set forth in Section 18:04.035 of the Anaheim Municipal Code entitled, "Structural Height Limitation-Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area" be exceeded. MMP No. 0085 MM 3.9.12-1, MMP No. 0085a MM 15-1 XVII.MANDATORY:FINDINGS~OFSIGNIFICANCE- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ^ Q ^ ^ .environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ^ [/( ^ ^ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ^ [/( ^ ^ '. substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? R:\ProladsUnaheim1J6y6\Inltial SIYtly Cnerkllsl-062266.tloc 39 The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Ior fhe Inclusion of Residential Uses Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Narrative Summary: Question Aand C -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Implementation of the project would potentially result in significant impacts related to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Public Services; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities. With the exception of Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic, all significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through application of recommended mitigation measures. The impacts that would remain significant after application of mitigation have been identified in previous environmental documents (EIR Nos. 313 or 330) as significant and unavoidable and a corresponding Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted addressing these impacts: Although the previous EIRs identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional impact in and of itself. Therefore, after application of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. Question B -Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As stated above, all but three identified significant impacts would be reduced to levels considered less than significant; therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the project would also be reduced to less than significant levels. These impacts related to Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic, have the potential to result in cumulative environmental impacts. However, each of these impacts has been identified in the previous EIRs as significantand unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted addressing these impacts. Although the previous EIRs identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional ', impact in and of itself. Therefore, after application of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project I would not result in si nificantim acts. R:\Pmfetlsl4naheimU@911nIGaI SWtly ChetlJlsl-05220fi.tloc 40 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, ali project applicants and public agencies subject to the Gafifornia Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 (d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption and County Administrative fee required) _ No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. a:~a~oiansw~ana~m~ozmmmaisway cne~xoswsuoa.eo~ 41 IS/MND The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 for the Inclusion of Residential Uses References Cited Anaheim, City of. 2004a (May). City of Anaheim General Plan (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 2004b (May). City of Anaheim Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 5920). Anaheim, the City,. Anaheim, City of. 2004c (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 1999 (January). Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 1994 (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum. Anaheim, the City.. Anaheim, City of. 1994 (September). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Anaheim, the City. Office of Historic Preservation. 1995 (March). Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. R1PmJectslFnat,eimUe29\InIpelSWtly CherYJisl-0622a6.tloc 42 IS/MNU Q H Z w Q a 0 0 O z ~' ~ ~ ~°a W O "' 0.' ~ O zz O WA ~ C O' F .. OV W~ a~ A W "" C~ zAz d A W Q Q G. O u' '~ e W E L d F c ?~ o - - s ° ~ ^ c .. G c q O w '7 O N d° U i ..• 0. N ~. C 2E -° a E a• ~ '~ E c a o~ o E E~~ y~ >,E ~ c d? c~ ..., 3w ~ .. ~q~~ .,,„s~ t°a oo,~a w. 3 3c .°~ "•~•~~ mw «.[.~woia d °•°'ow E a~ c o o y D o E ~Q ~ w ? ' C ~ E O •' ~ of q v `~ a~ a~ O U O° cE fn d t0 N '^ ~' w CO ~ ~ N~ 0. ~ ~'^ G' b a~i ~.Ew•~,n 3 _tb ~ o .~"..E .n i,w .7 ~ ctl .~ a a Y y ° ~ m c~ ~ .o °~.c o 0 .~ v° aopi~°'' ~ ~ ~.. m p•v ~ ~ m y ~ w •~'o ~ b ty. .'r7 w E p O O y bD U •~ E v °'' ^v c y o o ~ ~ m v~ . [ y Oy ~ td ~ ~ O. ~ i U y d p ~ u td q v ~ C. ~.'. ~.' OD •~ E U q ~ C.. 'OU' ° ..°'c o ~•E.o° `o E ,,gip a^~ ~ ~ aEi.a a 5~9 y O' U 0 w 7+ F. ~ ,q a ° ^ ~'>.o.=' E ° ,~^m y ~ ~ ° ~ o mss ~.o ~ a ~ h 'n N° q 0. td ;p G '+^.' U `~ ~ 3 q q p _ a v~ G. N ~ hU _ ~ a ~ E '~ 'E ~ N q q O' w N .~.. q w V U .~ .y N w~ ° OD ,° a. ,°. co p,a y ~ a v. k+ o v ~ ~ ~ ;; .8 E 6 .~ ~ ~ y .ray o ~ v ~ ~ '~ m ° ~"' q ttl L q ~ bD ° « O eu y e ti c. •~ 3 o m B o a ~ q c 4 ~een ~ Y T ~ ~ .q .~ ~ .~ b0 .~ c°i vi ~ 3 .C .°r y ~" Cam. L a~ ~ U ~ b 3 y ~ .-°. ~° 'L ~ q a q 'b ° ° ° ° ~ y = 'C«7 Y m 0 4 U O K a~ C N .~.. G~ 'v C U ~° ^ U e ~~~° BCi ~ ~•a~ o~ ~ ow ~ qF.s y ~ 3 c'3 ~' ~~ c ~ a~ ~ ~'•° a ~Es ~ c ~ fi °~~' c Oaa,, E a c ;E ra E" ~ on 3 °~ :n c > ~ b ~, ~ ° ° P. ~ " Y' C a U rJ' T ~ L' C'' 'L7 •q ~fn C1 ff 00 CJ ley N U m y • ,. o a ^~ .a m 3 •Y .,~ ~ o a a o ~~ P: o 0 0~ d ~ .a a ` a. "~ ° 0.Q °o. A v m •E ~ h ~ y = c o: GC7 .°'. •o ~~ F a E o m C4 •0 3 O E E .n 8 v 0.1 0 3 A 10 Q f0 C d N Q~ Q) .~ t 10 C Q C O J d a E 0 U c - T c . .d d c ro EN m Ec ~ d~ N'N r U C U o'vy O N W N? ~>, p:C: 0: ^~ d N ~ W 6. . ~. ~. rnm C C y o ~ ` ~ C mor C C p z ~C C _ ; _ = 'U E y c c f0 t9 = d ~ N lV lp T as ~w¢~ as v m c m U U W m m m v a~ •• ••. m rn.j >, N Loo m e c . L L C L ry N lp m v a N a N >.~ -'~ ~ m c m c a~a m h o `~ N N - E an d ny N N ~ ,,, F , . n tp L N l9 J C N 0 N 9 O t D U N N j N n E L C ~ NN. nO . 0' C d C N d N > N a WOO J. L~.NW 0N NaV Oj Oft Cd . E C9 N E ~ .¢ A N N T N N N O d 0 Oi >' N D N n ~b U b m .~ N ° N mmm ~~m~ °oo ~~~_~ m~v°E '0~mo m co .L.. ~ Yl ~c O C N d O C n O) N_ N ~m~c= 'E°~m ~&oi 3 L_ N~ N .O ~_ c E m O'3~ ~ _N U vd o `~~a m mQ°mm' ~ E ~ rnt y o m NC~_' . ~ ° Nco.aoi ~m : ya . .F ~ y : aE °3 ~ ° c co rn . ~ - N N~ v ~E > ` m = - L i ; a.: ca m. v~ C U V X E U C~ N C N -o a 7 v + « C G 3 O (0 N~ ~- N d ym N 0 _ L._N O 01 O m«co cam ~ ~m'_. p C ~° .oJEL>°° dL L N a y O B O O ~ N N L N L U' G O N N d N O O N dL N ~ C . N pppC 3UO~~ O G~ C . ~ " , ~ ~~ L mC`1 c'vU V d fO NN O °mvNC~d c c~E`c En L ~~ ~ OI OO ~'mm0 v=~ccvi ~~- l0~ cL J~ v a i U 3 V O p •N N C N N - _ ~ p i 2 E y~ C J 3 L « =~ y_ a O w ~ N ~O ~ C . _ W N E N p 10. d. ~ l0 ~ d C lp C N O V >. >~ Oi O E m c m. O: ~ 9 C U N ~" . .. n L d. O . o c,., o> ° m ~ ~ N ' n« v g ^ N C ~•E ~ m o~a N ry ~ y c E o N B C • m L 0 'O a 0 V ~ 6 N N 0 O N y N~ N« p, N N 3 ' 0 E ~ r NryC N~ NN«L EE Ip CN~y«CL N ~OC Cy 'O O~ L N -m y E y .a y V C a Z O N 2 a O G O N OI y~ T o N N y a O N> N . L N 'r N~ ry C ° J N N N o A E ~ ~ N o = n.. ~: c v C N .~ w ~ D - O N .. c ° c c w C y m -a ~ U ENS mui •'o uTivQ - o = o . . O O ~~m~o~3u~Ey~3 . U Opp.. i e a da a>i n m .. iv a a - Om > ~ € L x m 10N ~m > ~ ~y~: m u i ~ C a i c E s O N v,.. '~a ~° n > L p ~ y ' y~ ~ y Q n C O S N. .0 L 0 tp d >' U r N N C N N tp L .• ~ C N 3 W~ C C.~ O~~ C t0 N 0a N p ~'E 39. ~p 3Y'O C d r •-• d t'NO N ~ 0 pCION O~.f/i 'Oa O.~CC. NlO N_~>~ OQO~~OVEN«~L 090 ~°°' ~, a~0 o gym"'. ~~tm°E> ~po3rnc~°c'oo~Ea°i ~.m m. c m c d m - ~ m. n lpL ~ m N'- ~ c._ ~. a~ _v._ a v m m" ~ m cp: '. o f u~ m. o~~ r~ E E a~ m o o v d a E' 3~~ c o a~~ a°° 2° m n n U :0 ~~ d n..6 ~ ... ~ d O J - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' C ~ N _ .0 ~ 'O 'O N Q C N n - L « N = L O' J J Hmaa. d L C N y O N C t0 ~ N L ry C" A L >` L ~. L Q O C ._ L ~-a._>iJ I-Nrw~.._U-3N d ` d O~~- ~ t0 t9 'O L l0 "' N 0) N N L L N L~ I-p.NJ.... L....N NErN N N L C {-._Q C C~ 0 V 'O N O] a s ~ c ~ v> c : L L L C O O) l0 C C N m ~. m 0 m ~ N 0 c3c or v m m J m J E c o m. W m N N N N _ a N O N N ~ C L O __ O _ p. 0 '~ m p OC pp OC O~ C a N O~C«~m :. a b d d p. G. p. N 0.N0 . N U e m c; {= _~a orm E w F = ~' "' Y g~ z~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ C O a E 0 U 9 C .T. C N O C m N U._ > C m m U C O'C m N N O. d~ m °"rn mc Ec ~ E: -. ~`~. E ~o UTnE 'pm coo d~ oc3 h _ m t a e me p0 °~ o p~- ~ oEp oom E oo m p ~ ~- N~ C C • ~ .C n G C O! C L C U X'C ~ O >~ • C C V m N C m G :~ 4: N m m N m_ m m j m m H m~ a p m m j m m m m .= > ~amLappp ~' as aa m w - m m ~ m L d m m C « m 9 L 9 =' C Y C E m N ~ N "' m V r N m m j C d ~ O d= C N O O m m C rn m ° o<mi •~ ~~ a c axio d ~ a d « t u,EN"d NN 3cmico Ccmrn 'E 2 O ? m m>cE a vim.-. - O _ m > a r ~ T m 'm N N N` m m C O w m m- C a.; a. m N o v E= - N L O. m °i9 d y n . N L N C. o r. d OAT O-« v N C ' a C U O L U m N >~ O .D N 9 m o ~ > ~~w.~Em Em '~°-~~o°. aiN E v .10 pjU ~~m:.cm« m ~ v V L L .. L E O1~ ~g m ~ N ca~ ' ~ p T • . o - N- 9 :,. > m n ~ o Y 9 m m a Z oi c N~ N m m O E m C a; ~ v o ` C + Ea@m°ma 'O V„ N 'G ti~ D. O m ~ U m U . C N- -~ .~° gym m . L gym N L oc~ C ._ n Em . d 'Y ~>d m 10 vE~~ ry m - a i tp U...mm ~ O E -OOm o. m~. Nj i c . NO~m-TmUm=L o Nm N C m> C C L Y m . m d d L N Y .- N U~ 6 x C ° r'~!am3aci m~ «aoE a>ami ~ Ny i oc'a y~a~~a, a Eo 9 v U m ... ~: E N O m i m O C N OI ~oam L m C m m? E O a m 'o N a m ... N y =d m' N O U pOC~ 3t:' . - mtC a o N ° . 3~ ~ ~ ¢oyodm.E. m '~ o 3 ~E"~ 2 N ' ~ o N rn =:.m cm ~ ~. E ,v_ ~ m ~ > a ° ui ~ m. ~= .,` a m c -- vmo x m>'° ' E m m ° m m ~ .`m m` m ao c o° o. a hm ~. Vi ~ °t m ~ E i a d E °cDo~~'o.ac imL . a ~ ' c H. ~ ` °v : 0 E` Elm m° "ctmy ~ - '". a a iN nd a L>~o r ' ~ o a i m m m. E - • mb~ ' °-' = co~ D misyu+ c dm~cmi KmE of ~ w v s rn d c E> ~° m c o> c o d m. E m m E« N m~ n" m n o~«= y -~y~mm•~ _ -off ~mmvm rn3 3 Lm °-'rL my mc ~$:~ oN~N o N m y~ a•O G m. E m L C€ O) C O N E . .mi N y N C C N~ T 3 ~ ... D! N y O C N~ m N.O a N ~O C:.- m m m. 9 N'. ` ~ m m v a~ m N ' °+ 9 C m'C ~. acm°"m 'w amQ mc3 nv• ms oc m~ y mm oF m o m v m «md o~cf° 3 m ~Eca ~ - . °~i5 m-o ° °~ y s:c ~'m -O m$ m m $ ~ mo~q m J 10 m c ~d~m - mmmNmC > 9 ~~ O - m m-`ry °a« m >...~.m a8 m N m ~ > m~' ~ c iv U 6~-C.OIm... N ° o~~m Eyo , o mE i co~' a > . E a' - m._ c . ~~ v a v~o e v.youm c°~ a dui am dE. .~ v ~3~~o >~amm a c m .m° ~'oc o NE d dm. E C m C_ . `mom C N v dmomL C N l ~ mom m~-N ? t W °•- 3 , d c-°c_•- Q~E'~a~ O O) ~ m. ~ ~mmr_ m m >i .UC~.y« m m 3=y~ 2 C L O'-~Fm ' O OC'-m ' E 0~ ~.~ CV~NIOV ~°p dy O.O ry. ` ° : °' v c m. a c ~' , T i m ° m ui E ~'d~ > a i °i ~ oo~-m T j tQ. 3 m ~° m m ~' m `-' m a ' o. o. ° p E Q , ! `;. am ru oe y~~ yv3~.n m o we=x~cD1 a's o, ami '°« °'o.> omp"c and>co~ o'm i$mmm €~'=~o.v c c'~.mc ,..dmm3 naNCmc new n ~'Q~w ~7 Hw aN Zmmm mW N~Ew ozi CmF-df~ m T 9 d m"' x ~ . m p; - x . m N a N~ n E m m i i n Fina a N i? I-a hu(/]u i a i ma ci FE m a c v m D) C m C 9 CO _ ~ a' ~ a c L U m ~ L ~ o U ami ~ m 2 c `o o `o 0 ,.E m m F m m c c m m c ' N ~c •O ^ N c ~ _ O `• ~ ~ C ~ o~E m `o ~ O m a`a o as c o ~ @. ~ d o..,a Q > •- N cq ga ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ¢ ~ ~ 0 a c E 0 U T a m ~%~c `o ... .~ E ° ...T . rn d v d -- d ~N N . C ' d LL rOm Q O H a m N W ~ C° N ~ C .. N .LK « m C N n. N 'C N pa > O 'd N ~ O E d E i ~ N~ > U m m ~ r. _. a = A E~ !3 d3.5: o ~ a nrn ddc ~ c c E~ odommn m n o.ZEN 'oi a~ aow v~~~aa> a n d 9~ °. a 'm Z' U ~ c d ui m m o °~e:~ va n `~ ° N s ~ a m E ~a d m F ,,, J N G o a o Lmddm m c ~ C oa Nd E~i~N : a °iim .°. E y ~ d °moEU ~' °~ ` W d°~adm ~a ` mei ~' m m v; 3 y c r vi ~ a ` ° ~-N~ d ~ n m E > d ' ` n ~ m E c o g ~ o ~ 3 ' a i ° m m E N m o~°y~ an ,. ~ d ~ a o~m c m d ~ Z` d-oeoo ~ m Em . or d 1° dcv -~ m ma >.m i 'm m u E m°£='°° OUv. ~Q o E~ and ~ c. :. c N '-m",. - 'muiN oaNm~an ~ Nadi d a LTi ~-m-- cEHm3L d.~ `; C9mEc as ~ ° ~ ~ mao m~ °% °a ~m ~° -o~dE° m°~ ' H ° c mn'a°i °'p ~ ~ ~ma c~ c„ . c °N~°c°.m, ~ °3~° md3 o ~° ° N . . E Na • m.-. U _m C day E~~~ m~ E ° _ ~-cmo -d >o'y O O - mccani co° d Gc as a a a c 01 m N..3 cLQ n L° >.« ~ ' ° E:- a`~ d m m E L u ~ c ' m:- d a_" N L° E ~' ~ ~' .. ° d d N E ~. d o U. ~ d n y d o S w c `z. U. 3 m o m v m ,~ O o m d m o c ~ d H m ~- L ~ . °. m: m ." J o a o m y a°i~dc is d odcz o .. mauc o. io ~ . ~'. E n no o. mcdm E ~ ~y~ wy3mwo m:O- o,3co m_ o~ ~ ~ z m E... ~--. ~~a cdiv ~~sE o-°°'c aco 2 ~Ln •°~~ d 'no d~.~yo ~UUz ma~E ^°^m o I' mc i Cl O E C C. O a ~ C m N° m m 3 ... t[I O° O d m ~c d 2~ ... a N~ ... b~ C .q d U d ~ a pp dOO OO Nrym C O am~ dN d~JO _ d ~C m OdQO' "a>NCO~~CU N .UO mAmm nN.j mO~$ C d'~ > dC O nmm CN . N L d a: mF--~ N b -O Qp ••° Y U . °a ~ ~O Qa in O.°.d mCp ° O y N a -. m B' p d m ~ C a N > d L C O C C ' O U N V N N m~ d N N O O U dN C ~~ d d w p [l : ~ m ~ 4 d tT d dL Ud ~=LdEN~°I Z` `° ui2O1o~=~ t~E`-n n5d~ and CmYONC c=°doUm dN d c°F-m m~C 0 ~~'~ €Edm , ` E mmt•~dm o~Emm`oo~ m 3-'a..nm N 3 ° d.- datum ma am ,..aN3~cdm.~E~m L T i N Tc°Ec~>> ~ oS€ ~ ,~.mm wdmm m L m O o m d C ([I °I V N a o ' 3 r- a 'r ~ N~ '-' - d O d 0 0 . E j d . m-. .. m_ gd~m~ ma•- `~Eh°=m.am ~~maim~xE co d owdc°am~ : d-- odU`o nmN oEL1L'- odm a°$$ o na~~~U7dUmd~ma~~~ aN1"i '~L`t •c '~ cod ayw E~cc ~ art ._. s - E co Haag'> Em'~n H EAU HEE au ad am a c c 'vdc ~ C _~ ^ am d U U O d ~ m a d ` N ` m m C~ o o C E ° o x ° = U c U c F w d o j1t dE d ~ - d °.j C ap _ N ' € N . n ~ m m oo oi °~ o~ g~ ° € ~~ ° • c d nnn dp c •• as o° ` i m io of '° E V _ ~ ao rnm ~~z ~ ~ ~ C O . ~ n E 0 U ~C ~ N N L O ~ •- ~ N m U •- m U m U d G N ~ N N a :: C O o m ._ ~- c N VJ _ c a i c E o. uai g o > r p ~ E o ~ rn >o u i > E O-C o m E ?i E nc ` m V ~ o e c as om~m m m N na>~- mm2 m m y .on>~- m2 o aoF-am o aooo pm aooo C m ' ~ QI OI N O C G ~ O) ~ O m N m L m m N a m y C L « V L Y 11 « C C a •- Ol'O O~~ .+ C G m C U C O m m m `m m... d.. ;~..; o d,., `mgrno m ~ r N~mc mom ~€mm4 3 cm10 t°m ci ~OEoc°' OTl ~' W L OI ~ N d~ C O C n C~ N W O p m N L m C d m U r G` W C .J C N O N O W N ._ m U C 0 m ~~ j m N L O ~ m N O) m« m O C C N >~ m~ .N O O ` U ~ 'v ._ ._ E ° . s o o ,_, n m ~ _ _ oNO~ o~ doo~mo . mmm. ~~ >> a o° d€ >> N U O C O m N C_ O) ~ m a n n > .O .O ~ 3 N > O ~ m m 'o o °' 'O a ~ ~ p e- m m C T« N V m ~- N C ~ U~ G nC J U N. « Gl NOUC C N~OI p~O~jw LmN ^Nm O JO"V O ~u'mm m ° ~ o rnE d a°i °-E' ~: o f ~' m?'Oa ~ o m E m °' c E D N m c `o n ~. _•~ ~ ` ««E m~°mmumi«c_-cmimm cower «r E. ~3~vo~ ~ c c my om . - cH o~'m m ~,mo~°°c'LV'>rn -'ON m . o 'w ' n~ 9cmic. 4'~cmam m ac ,: m .o~~ r . dc'O-a c ` c c y o =~ a°°al d~'`m ao my°m'm ° ._ dLE ado>o m.°- o > n 'O m c ~ m N m c ~ b u m rn~ a ~ m .o m co w y ~- m m C m~ Y IO n C N m N m~ 3 r:.- m n° m m d B C N m. ~,,.. D m 6 N m :c. C O d m .~ :. ~ «- m .O m O p d a m d~ r m ~ u~ D C O •- m N O O m m L n ~ ~~ C m m= m€ ~ ~' d O L N 3 N d N C n ~N. m 3 d C j L m 0« m U p ^ O O C m ~ .N C) T O O> d r m N. U C G _ O m C C U C L N N E ~ PL: > L - C T N y _ O O d" N m m p m j W~ > _~ . ~- W a m C m m 'O U .m $ ~ O ~ E a j C « ~ C C . . m + _ ~ O m n N O V O n.U d N O y = ~ N G A ~ m L~ O L d - . aU N'm0~ m ~ ZNacU C L y« nEm~- mO«TC CC m« L C LO 30 °'6G'°Np. C 3 0 T ~ C .~. C O C ~ W m E U~ C~ N N Z« a~ C N N ~ N> O 'O N N Z N p ~a N C O.~ V= O.~ m p p O.~ A N~ m N N m p m ~' m O G'G O.~ m N m~ m y ~. °co~'c Tm~d~ dc« Emor2d n3m~'c cW O: d~L' Ems>oc ' ` amaam ay N•yE m~-ao~ yo~oL >mm m~mm~Eo-rnoo-:2"' a~mnmooE.S.V ~ mE$ H~cmi „ >mm m° o_3 mEL in gvomo NNmwo moaoN ' . vo°~ .o'd ='-°Cmm'a~°m m c •mo mU ` ~OO m omm°m~ ` mm,b a v c> ~w `o ~° 10 ~'' . m_m ooca-3L omL« L m G o 0 o m m~ o .. m o L m- r ^' L a ~-y p o m3m c> N o o ~ ' L ~~mx~ .~m u o °p . mn~>o~c ommm~y ~ o a op aci onO a . . NQmmC o . o '-om~2 v ~~ ~•:~ ~mc~oama uvzm~~o NO ° m~ mm ~ ~ ov'-m'o m «• ~oodm. o mcL m-•-cmoEm m"dm._c am mnOr a' m 8mt ~v a_ on« n ' . m m E mNOO ~ ~ om EN3n c ,Gm ~c Trd cam nrm L L ~U m m` oQ m 3~ ww N e mmc E ~ rd d«3 am v~aH m~oa .~ l ~ U i m c i Q ma 1- :4 p ~ i v o ~- E a 3 m L F i t c u i 'o o L ~~ a c . . c ~ I - c ~ cO1 D 4 m 'O m 11 01 Qi m U V 0 d d C m O O E' ~ > i ~ N V] o 0 N - w a n U m m ~ o 0 `p € ~ p c o c 'c an N ~ 'cm as - m a`n v ~ JJQ O K -~.. W d m m:E 1~ _ = ~ r > N > ~~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ C O . ~ a E 0 U y U N _ N y U a L m N m 'C O m~ m ~ r m r m 2L o a•- ' am V1 c m o ny c m o nm c m o 6U1 v7 ~ m m '~' ~ ~ C y Y... C y ... _ m mp omE ~~ ~0 ~~ omE p°aci ;-:mmc. .o d > ._ > m~ m~ m~ a n>~~ m n? n> o x000 am' am amJ aJooo OO mOWa _ m m y~ m 'O L.. O J a~ '° ~ N 0 Q. 9 m m ~ C m U ~ y IL) C J m m a m y O m O N C C Y > 0 O m~ N U 3 ° ~- ~^ ' C m Ol ° N U m m C P ~ y~ m c ~ m gnv "'« d°~ d " ate m d~.r. ° inwE a m o~ a iE ~ y om y,Z .~ > ~ oo o o.~ E m o asx ~vmm L V ~ U W OI m N O c> o c O N p >~ o° °~ " N N m ° m° m N,m, N J C m° ~~ o ~ E m ~ a- U m d= ` E m ~ ~ o m ,: c L . rna ny c ;n ~m ~ ma a y ~ a~ °.: w sa ~ c.~ 3 ~c L ~ m . a i m an d ~ C~ m L~ 2• U r m U m N G I N N ~ O C~ . L . m~:=.JJy O . . Ca O~ mm ~'"' ~ ~ m m`o U m m ml m Q mOmd ydVy ~« J ~rn . ' °c d. m W mm O' ' d ~ nmg•c. ° ;c ~ v .~. cy m > my U ' N ° v. L .. m~~mE od L' a u~ Uamm n a>>m nrnm ~eNmm m~ ~ ~m'O ~ ma Cy y i ° d~cmiat ~aoac cu°c>rn :oa m° Q rnm a>E~. orna a `?o~2m~ v`°L'= ~~ o~ c m U m r,,,. m :_ c c O ' ~ c E~ L ._ o y :°. Z c m ~ an d "J C N 9 m y m m N SJ. y m~ y m_ 9 mom O `- -~ m .O Ol C J _ m N d •0 y 0 C~ y m 3 N 01 y H C Q m ml 6. y m C ( ' C m.. ~ D o m a m m ~ m ` D ,- °' m m ~~ m m o C 0 O m O m . rn d ~YE y. i~~ omm°a o Y ° ^, EL . a~~ ~J m.m E ~ E> >. °° a N 9 m' N y N C. T y ~ a °i J O~ m ' y d L J ti m C E C Ol d y O m m - CO.m O!2m01 y dT.y O~ZCL y -N mF. - -NN m yL~y. imm a:flC ymv EO .y d00mC Ec9y y.ap °~m. ~ m d >` ~C y a JL C ° N N OI `~ N.L.. ~ L A y 7 m Ql C m m Of m U> n c m. .. 1 F O ° d m ~° E~ m o i ° ' m m y d `m o m y e m:Z` m m y m € . " c O w y m°# > E m m. c > E m ~:.. r. - m o . m d a nca m O ^ ym c ~ =m..°~a rn m ' U C O W b~ °) a °' ' ' = ~ O m >o € m •a° y mo n m y ~ =~ O L C C > O Q O C y ° m O N ~. A m' ° E~ : dpi rno o OE~ Q mn~ O ~ G vrn ~ vo.m o '~'c°~E y m mdL io.. c . .s.€°.o >: -O a ~ ~ - O ~oo~Lm ~om .° ~cm~ ° €8 ° ' dv~ vm m d i -dma v~mc ~Emd y$~ E . ~ m3dms o~« iwm~ FF m o~E m FF 3>~L cm.y c i 3~ a i J~ F ac m ~ m I c$oc.°'~ani~aci "oaa ° 'aE °~'c-- ° o~`m °~ C c i 3 °o'y>> °' a~ m9 m'°$v-~ .~ ` `y"O f0' ~'Od '~`o°~ ~'~c ~o ~'m aLd COya t umaccmc E~ a~wL. do a"-cy m a5 my mcoom a v° npcytm~'-'gym E>a~rn a~° 2a~'°m o~o: om 8'~oi~-~ E°-'01n L o mac U) v Q m 3 ~ Q y m d c c E ' ' ~ v.. m n ~> o da E n y m d m m. morrnc ym~ o o o L n~ ~ . c L J m L G X C L m m L ~ L y m O> m c $ : . ti v !-mrnrn r-3a t-mmm. F-L y f- i h ~~L (nm3m ~ c a c_ m c m c 'O L fA N m a a Q m ~ ~ Y L L N L N ~ IL1 /Ll > ~" w m V N W L m C O O _ ~ p ~ , Q LL $ ... 3 E ~ m > m U ° U p m U v m y ~ °0 m m F ~ m m mCm a m C p p ° C Cm a (n m y J y C y N Q: . n y C O ~ °.. $ m ~ °~ ~ $ o Ln ° n7. ~ '~ ~ E ° ~ Z J c E p a cm ad cm as cJ a~ ' -d a`n ~ o ' Z ~~a iv adao ~ m v > y ° ~ a p •~ cv ~n q u~ ~ and ~: O > > > > > ~ > ~~Z W' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ! 2 C O . ~ a E 0 U a « d N a ~ d « d C c d N O U a . « d ~ N ~ d 0 C N O O N d N Z N OMO ip ~ m G d C . S« O aA ~ 2... d C d NN > D~ E 2L d C.. O~.-. ud~ Z ^m c E O c ~ a c mom: L d m ~~u. .: cv] ° ? y icm ~.;; 10=°d Ec O _ ~ a ~ O . . a i « ~~10=°EcVl~m O ~ p ~ a i- E~i~ . p a ~ d '-: N d C Ec° mE d N d _ Edc O E ~ ~ d C N v~ ~° m N d G ~o. v i K i a m°, d o d a i mdU md, ~ d° o y Emvm ~ °, m d~ . ~ pod . ~ ~ d ~ ° d € 00 NO W d UU m didOtnW OO N w11 W d~ o. Ll. W d Dld cc« N N Fy-«o d d N- «°~c d d= - d= ~3r «~o °~E~tm>o i c m . a m m m o o c d L o rn~ : E o° U a c m . ° d ° m = n °~N E ° y o ~ ° c°~ g m o d ao o ~ ~ d d d o c ui c H -n d s ~co Stn >c ' ic ma o E'3 a ~d~d y WLC d>~d myam dmN~dN x o.o~do « ' $ ° ai 83 vtt C d=a °1 0~ o ~ ma d° f n _ d ° C 9 C uE' o N L C ro d= 0> d ~ a~~ C c> ~, d ~`0~y c m am~mYt o O '~ma = iart~ 3 ~~3y ' „ , n ~v °W d:° dO1mom c- . _- J U ndc o°~ ~~«. _ _ °viom~~'E cwE m~ o dL O= odo`? mo-° a Yod`d om $°- a'Qi~ama ".'>n.. d. mc= gdo ami"=°_inQ y~m,c ad . y ~~W N. tN•W= d~F ~dtnNUCO U~y~~>N .m m . 'o °aci Ld a3~.d ~ELL~. dm°o°~~ncdyEd~m. ~ d . .. m~E d a m«3 c=~Ntn>` 9 'o'€mQ~am . c, . ~ maLm T« `o m" -` ~ - ¢NEdo~~S«~>s'~« c m. '@O>o. ~aaci~ a o yc~ ~~m'Z~m c~.m ~aciodp d _ m p,d m~ mLL m~y t r o "' 'w n ~->` o:d ~:: c rnm~o~E o3may` ' ~ !_ «c -~m a s . m°. > ; z °~~m °c a dui td d y Q2 U ~ ' E id a L cs ` E ~ @~ QE x ,o c ~pd'-° `°-~. ~-~o ~~ d.m aciU cv ago!=L 3~yduJi°o~ a C G d L U N 2 n C O Q j a ~~ a] r' J N° L >. d a a mYN d.. ~.n ~ 0. .~`~~ E ~ p ~~ p >`~ lea ~ dL Q.a O N O.~ NYL ~ 0 a dO N ~ d. 'C O.C ON A O la ' ~mL.)L~ C d dda f (~ N J ~ d~ dda=~(nE Na Nd d~O oo-a d-. din ai o ~ ~co d•p oad°:. o> ~ ~ ~ m .°m'o~ t~ E m dtcd'E ~~ a nL 3m m 3 z ' oo ~o d~i. m dFF m m ° L° m o c ` c n x d H0. d LL o Q UO~Q . c F- W« o 3 o o d m LLUm~-fn V7 m o n.~.9L NQ d rn C m C 9 d V (a 1-• G W ~ ~ ~ ~ l0 y -., w L N d U V = d € : ~ e O ~. m E «L..L 3 . « d ` nw E > m ° ° - = ° c d is d ~o d C J O d d $^ n O p U nE ~ d = m mmo~ dnt~ w0 ~ O C -p @ ° ~O L c m gmEcJi ° mt a O onto - aa3 c~`d N n q u~ n m > > > m.> C O m o. E 0 U N 0 ~ w m 0 N ' - ~p (0 C ~ u (p 2 y o N Y N C C.. , m y d ~~ o o O ~c ocELLC UN3~U m~ ° o'o 0 ao: a i U°c^0'Eoo'-caEo N ~ N E . N N C C+ 9 ry N n N mm C C mm C C . ~ . L ~ N aU.. O W ~ N N ~ F- y ~ ~ ~p C ~C •c ~G d l0 N d C~ 0 N fn > W N N N l0 (p R Oo 3'vowaBE~ d~ 1° a as ' aa L C N c ~ L ~ O N N N E "'tp d N ~~ N C O N N N r ° 0 j«o2? n o "'maocx'namjO`o " m o m nEm `~ 0 amwUm ~a ~Z~Eaomc d a c m m ism°o N« E ^oe m ' a ma N .. d Ca NL ay Tr a" d m m N.~a '~ 07NLL a n n E y V 0 E ~ C N o n >mcc". oc~a°imo,-.moo tNa aci m~-°m° 'E °: L f0 O . U .. « Z C U Ol a N ~ V ~~ 3 O 0 d 0 @'C p 0 f0 O V d d m~ C m 0 d N. cW~ ~E a~'aoioPmOia2 c L~ oc~ Ln q . NN SN ' N~Ema~ ~ O C LSONN n9 d ~ N > a N a dNV i a C .N d O L 'U N C '~ N N~ d~ d O? Q y9cm~a o`o.c3~Nmc°ipn~t m-~~'~cci-r ac E.. t 10ci° k NN °oo _ Em»° > m_cn E U mm °-min ~ J d N ~~Om j N>0 j t0 ~ 7. ~o EN a N . O m m"'ja O Z O'C O.•-•L O O a 4~ L N O C 4 ry0 3 y2 . v O . . . N n ~ ~ O O H G O d g. U ~'0 10 L __ m c n U ~ O _ - O W N n (p ,L] L N ~~ 9 d " L N N O L L ..... N 'n N ... O ' ~- n i ~ n 0 Off O ti ~ t V 0~ i ' O a ~ ~C m N m n (J N m t N N 9 0 m Z~ m o m N 6 a L m C 0 ..(~ d ~ O m n j ~` ( J m m m C O 3«~ N N U a • • O'L On an d `_ ~ m .~ ~~ C m N n . > C~ U U m Z. O y a Q ~ ~ m N N _ O ' ~ O m m 2 ~ aOm«~~ U m: m a m d X m m m ~L N ->LOQ C' N m ~ d J L m3nC m m F C 3 ~°°mav ~'. NO ui dmt o. >. °in E °'c m° m ~. ;~> m~ ~ ' O cti L and O c ~ N; . .a - d~ E ~ E o. m m ._ N , o ~ a'~ c m c m °~ o a t c m m U E. o o E" rn c N L c m L m~ m. °o . ~ . u i v °~ m `o ~` m 3 o S oc~,a. z$ ow `'a . a m dyO.9umi .;.c- a.H N ai o m d^ °' m o m ° _ „ mD1 °o c m ~' c °s 3 ~ N d -- m n m m o a i c'o o d c'=~~'> o f ~. c ° ~ o E a ° c a m o ~'o c mN~o ¢a.~cm~mn~~Nd~~m ` o.d ~ ° as=` Uo- >o'c~c- O~o>>~oo~o~cN:co ~O~~N m n~.m Uo ' t ~`Emd NiEm3ty ~ Uvvx` 'u ac no E v H'm Fm _ ~ ~ L m ~a L OEy 0 t!~ma j L ~ NC 2 C a ~ 0 L . L C m °?o o, d~ r m C C ~.... C q a y+ m Tr y m i d ~ O . tC 'C j O ~a.-. 'oi c o E «ac vo~anim Erb E m ° O O) N 3«m ~ N ~ ~UV a cmivm oa°i ~.c a°O pjv _. ~o a. yam N m# mnam.o $ m«°'c Q m c2 c E Br N LG. C~ p. c°m C maEE d a i O mmN N O E,-m C C W~ C N O d ~ U O Q O U d~~ a N~ 0~ ~N ~d d C m ~ ~ m :o m r m rn' m E j > > ~gz ~ ~ ~ 0 d 8 E 0 U N .- U 3 U ~ N U N U~ . °~ d > O m d C (n E T ) > _Q'U m fq m . Vl . N.~ ~ m Y.:CNJ CC N Y~C N y..: C` ;ao, omE°'U EN `omE omE om' ~ E nc m E c m.c ~ E nc ?i E ac N -m of-°om ~ N'o ~ oro o. . ~'c9o ~ N m N C C L N N m N m N ' ` a ' o a oooow ~~ aoo a oo 'm m c O T a m No ... « 0 tt o,~m O C.-L a C YJ 3w~ m mw~Em w C m U m`m 2~ 'O..'- N L C mm ~ ~ D ~ d C 'C C~ ~dm N m T O y U m> - m C C.y ~~' C >n U N ` ^ C9 . .m .~ 0 CG`-' n ~ L Q C V1 9 m >O Ia L 2 ~ N O Nj O U N N 'O C `O 'O OC O N ... . . _ ~' m .Om . ... ~~ 0_ im_ L _m . .. U ( p c a n nacir `o mW c= ~ o > _ . o ~m .. _ m m c`o Em y ON ~ c o ._ ~~ ~D..a YwE . Loo Vim... c na wmv ~ Z y d~ y O . ,., N j 3~ d '.' ~ .C m m m 3~ ~ ~, m oca ~ ~ O Nm ~ T N E N E ~ ~'~ ZEE u a c c ~ o n= ~E3 ' ~ a y ~ nz N« LLO~ ~` `~: O m=oo O? U C n ?~~ n 0 Nco . mEoo,°;~ ~ m a' 'm ~ N C m ~'~ moan. amp m°y U y o co N m .r E~ym Eo d='~ ~ ~ o uc ~d~d w~~a a Lm c . > ~ ac ~~ ~u ~ °. m ~ a ~° ~ N TO ~ .. a i ~ rn E > o da . Y~ ^~ ~ ° m ° ~ • ~ v o m ~ ' T i 10 m o m - °~~~ E~ 9~~m 3 ~ mau N> c c _ . ' E w ~ H o i 2da^oc n ~ ... °+ m ~ c a o a i T ~ "¢ ~ > i a o ~ ~ -~ c ` y 0 O y0. ~ N 6 N L 7 • N N m N 0 . ^ E 0 'O N N N m U C O Q m ~ W N fa d C J O N ~ A a O .. ^ ~ W'~ ~p 0 N ~ U N ~ '% ~ ~> l ~ .OCCC N 3^ ~ nC C Nm= ~ ~O d~G~ ONO m ~ m m n U _ p l0 O- m N ~ N E N m 3 u L y' ~~ - C U m v = o m ~Or ~ > m ~... ' N _ m~ " m m ~ u uc ~° N m c O . .. c m n3 amo,OC -Zm oo`o c... Z >D nL m N ~o 3 .L. O >L,3p6 D.~m~ W TN a2 mNN ~ N~C O)~ m pf~> W , ` 'mc am°c~i ~a m ` E o 0_ L ~t~ c °= ~ m C UO c L~U m > CL y o- v C ~ y.Z`m d , 03m N o N C N m C O U Q N O C O •~ ~ Q: m F" Nm ~ 'C L a>j N `..' = ? U N O ~ ~ ~ > w N o ' T' m o '°•m o-._ N m? md ~ p E o~ v °- -- rn ` o o m ~ c a cm m ~ S a o ` m a .c ~ . rn ,v_vc °m i ~~ 3 mace Em p c. `ou ~ md:~ cm'G v- v.L .. mLa nm m cmo a E 'c ~ F m3d°o z. ~ oma>>°1 ¢ c m-oa ~ om~ _ m~`o rnNy o ` 33= ° ~: a c 3° ~ 0 a 0 y m v m ~ a m o m € o N.c N~ nt U~^9L ~mc c ~ o5~m Nm ~ anm-O~c ~ V a m c Ns nam a i E mm ~ vc a i o` E Ox c a ~ . 1N °.m~` c 'c c Ny aD T m L°'°'cc oa i o~ arn~a~ •p laT m m a i p m m~ a i ~ ? cENd~-0 m n5om N~ A .Q~ HnSpN ~~~30 . mLQm , A > n m , gy .. g3 a~ L i--go~~ ~v. .d C LC r-w~2 Nl0N L2 r¢E.cEN. c L9 F-S~w 9 ~ ~ C C N ~ ` o N `a oi u o m c n~€ p~ C Q LLm N OIO C O O L O OHO W o ~ € o o~ c R n m a N m a m no m N m ~ p ~ O C p V p ~ ~ C O Q 'C N j La aoauc a N O aH° y t7 ~C m v' ~ r N OJ n~a... 0 .= - c g~Z 'S ~ ~ ~ C O . ~ a E 0 U c o - - c - o - - O " _ N N m U >` N m ~ N ~ N m m N C ~~= O Ec ' ~ c m Ec E .N ? C C E C E C E C , a'~= fD c C o m '(n m N w ~'cZ r p m ~y r m O°~ ~ m o r m.o r m o N. ~' N _ O _ a> U m - O~ 6 ~] n N O D n N n N n N ac:' ow19 0 _~ sd OO O ~oo QO ~.O ~p m ~ o N ~~ o m 'C 2c m~ .. cE ~ ~.m cm cm . o i K ~ a na c c ic ,c o .v n 2 E m c c . . i a c E N v ~ c c v ~ v ~ v 'o c as ' a a ' ' ' ' a m a ovia~ s ac~ m ? a. am am am aoam ~c om ~ >.~ mm « a arnam N>. m mcmc za O1E d n~z ° ~ ~-" -',t~~~aci~a a~ n3 E m m `°' ~ oa ~ .o c ~ d'~ ~'~ E m °' ` mm~a° mz Ea E nmQ ~~ a :° ' ~='E N C n ~ N d m m. 'O L -~ m n€ m O' C m rn? in E m E. m m.. c « m ... >o ~ m '° O1 E c ` ~ o' c °~c9 ate' 3L. Q >,°`o $:c c a~ ~odEo m oa U N O~ m O O' O` A. n C ~` m O 1 D d O d m~ O ... C C~ N L C a m C N._ c m o W. ~ « L . E m N N~ N m N a O C S~L . 3 m m N m. N . N Dyma m °.E'm _ .3OJ N J ~~N O p y JONdmNmC D) C , oo3v m~~E '- v~mU N cc I iI .mm caNi t°E E N _ NrnLm.E°cvNN Eom m Ec o`°c •m mm Ern mm Ea m~ -ca m2._ aNm m c c o m m'v p~m m'S ma mm« ~ ~ 4 m o ~ ° t ' c o$ o - ~ m c ~~ ~ E ' a c o ~ ~ ~C m e m m c a~ c m ~~ o f° a o - c m `i L. ~ ID S a= o o c o m . N D L 1 ~ N ~ C ~ C U m~ .> m ': N. N. E ^ a m m O C a m. ~ V > m... .p Qc~ _ ~ a a me m m'c. y- m °« nr~ m°~ c.c .E m'- ° d E ^ a`o m t ° m- o `° worm c n6 m nm ^ N c w a c i a.E a Nm c Nca>+c...Qc :. rn mom m yvmim 00 ma° : « 03 mm o«n m°o ,g o« c m.~ om= c~ivio mu'g 9o. oi.. O fLn .~m~ m LCO. LN VmI O ° aU ~~L ~~m LC 1° Ny ryC -CO ~ U a -o Nmn oL_ me 2oU nc« N mic~ n n m~ m m m m~ a m ~ L N N N m T ~~ O w m >, n N N d J~ d : O L m «.O j T~ O O ~« m m m« [q O j l0 ~'. > "N ~ CO O Q a °~ a O m d N N O= m d ~. m C'- y m m n >« O Q J '"' « a v«c 9E~ ° E mom ' a m vo E'yo ' " aa ~m ` m ~ n ° >.o ago m c m ~ ~ ~. m c d a : r. m in ~ c~ ~ ?p?o.~ cd `m~-c c`Z ~ d??U. cm -_ m ~ ; o ~`.m > avm L `mr c3 ~ a o m cd m. dcc~ 3 ~m~ 'c. 3: oc~ m' 5 oda 33~. o ~ c¢ ' n ~ L` ° oa . a ¢o t3 °<'rn E~ . a ~'E ny : ~p a '~ n= N ~ c 10U m 3 m ~c ~ m ~'m 'c i N ~ ' N i. m Ea . ~ m m> z ~ o p o= ~ '° ° aodm " ate m _ a ~ m a. ~' E n p1 - m mm ` na.c am c ~ . Q c nNdvi oUa m nm= o o m a aim o m ~. •o o.~- and o o ~' ~ m= o m nN o. !~ w `m m m nw Q mm='°~ m«'9 . m~"m ~ ~m !? poc ^ ro n~ mcsi mom°v can ~ w : L E~ ... N L ~ L > 6 0 3 Q C 0 y L 2 m L U L a 0 '. Nm_mN I- S I-«m LL(n Zor-~. QnN F Fm3mU:=5« ~ : m m ~ ~ m C O N C Ot L m v a c c w N C _ ~ C m A C a m L U S ~° m ~ v ' ° ~ ~ ~ o `o 'E o, cc S '. m j ~ m m mm m Z n Ec m i a Ow m N C C Z N m 0 N n C J m °~ ~ $ a s 6 -° O N ° 3 ° m2 ~ m s g ~ n c C a m ~ ~ g 9 ~ ~ m ` o a` N N a S z a` a o °U a` .'m o a s e m w -° ~ a Y fD ~ . ~ ~ a co V o - ,m ~~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ C O d S E 0 U ~ c c c : c -~ NC rc rc rc ro m aci aci aci ~. ,c •c m a N~ N~ N 'y E E E: E m N w Q N 6 N n N 6 •~ 'C r C 'C E. N j N 'j N '> N .- N N N N o'e o0 00 00 00 ~ m d N '~ ._ 'c ._ '~ ._ •c 'c N N N' m p N'7 N j m'g N m : -p .O ~p. ~O d L9 ~. m d m a a d d d d 11 mu aci~ aci ~°°1 ~m3m a3irnc^y dcUC' °~ai~ muc m C U C U Y~ ID ~ `. ~> j N~ N 'S N O G N ..~ 'J C O O m N -~ N Nc N N ~ nc~o mm--d m d o No aE n '~ C a~ 9 O.'O Ol N N N V1 9~ ~ m N N. ~~ G N 'C O JE NaNOE'maE ov,o ~m o'cta E>'d-> $~nm ~ N N ... ^ 9 O. N N C O r C N O> •.. N> C O y L N N TC '- O~ C~~ C O ~Y. C'C >. N p a N U .L-. T~ N ~N BNNO nj:0y Na.m.. ~`p.NOa OI n~N amv =N o@ 2'°'0°- mv~.N YNrna rEm`~ tvyc Nm= ~ G J N> N O N m C m NL.. 'N C N C> '- r C J ~- d N° >i NN m0 N... Nr 0«.-w. n NN n00~. CNOE Nd p N N 'U n ~ N J~ N .... N C N C ~_ N m ~N a ° 3 N o ~ m m T ~ m Y C~ -V O L> O ~ N N m~ N N C .L` C V O ? C r N c E v N> ~~ m r m~ =~ a°i n: •`-' P? N` ~S ~ o ~- N m° o .NCB m^ nc oN°' °mE2 o ao ° N o,a~ $ m~ ~ 3 O` ~ o C C N .- N N ~ y N O N m m y r O N Eo mN ..~oNx °''---tea ~E rn~~E demo. md. a,.3 u1 a> °~ c 3 n .• ~ v m 2'.c ~ ° °' N a v n n c N T .N« NNmNCN Er~O m NLN NNNm >NNL-~ C•E'C V l0 L C> N a O N C m O] °' C N N C O. r, N N~ N. N `.. ~= c r c..~ o ~ N n.O N N o, ° `o !~ ° E' m N m o cmi .N. m 3 m e m m3 ~°~o ~m-~'~ ~mN'2` ac=rn a°~y ~°--°mvJ o~N LN N.^~' N°._ dN>«. L .°,_ .E ~... ~. .Eomn onad m'N>'or N. Nc JN> J~o.o NF CU a°ornacEE n_d 2`o cm~ cN rL C N C .~ O N T`-'.C. N. N "' J e':~ ~ J -.C " Y d N N n ~6 mNO Na NN NOON NO C~Ny~m -CJ9 ~O~w SON '.mE E~~..'ON n~NE c.>c-'>>'°. sma°i~ aN° d0 L p °' N IO tp N U O) O N N O L« d. m t O U N N Y N 'm0 N 'O r ~ N O Q~ Z N~ N- j- N O nO1.N amL 9 C U ~.- : N C m J N ~° 9 N m^ O.~ N N C N N 6 0 ° C J m ~ C N E Nd '001 "'N N c'NmNy No ~ o d' ~_' N m n c o. c o o n o E c nL -- m o "- N o cN J N t . as oNOy N"c--= -° CN_°"~ N_~Jm _mNai. >9 n mam ccrn m~Un m. vi-w ~Jn a>>>Na ~rnN .° mid-Jm0 o10N~ a>>a`o~ a>>~aN amLa L~~tv N'O NmE ~mzmn: ~'o mm vL aniN ERNE NNF-o c.E= "> °m ENE caNim~d mcmN °«ccccm.O 3`~cN O1-N °N. pm a~'o 3Naa oo~n 3`00°-. 3- ~'m o~E.-. d3c ~a c '~Np o cNN T-imo or,°m °.-o[n yr@. v N'ON ~`a ym.: .Cmoo~.nm~u NmS .~i N`;N m9 a$ ~~~,cc m -O C N: N C N ... O N ~ 9 N ~ O~ ~ N~ y C n N N C N O N N N nC C N n N N L n` OlU O. nm O O C_ ~° 'O °" c`v ~° m f r O 9 d N U~ INq J iC O n C C' °` N C B U n~ N E N. y~ m E' n C N ~p n N _ U C 6 m O~ 6 N V m 6 E N N O N !' : N p O) m n m d __ 'C ~ N~ N U N~ N N 'O ~ 6 n m C U m N N U n N O- L L C N L U J W L N l- t C m N L C N N ,C. N O S d L U N C i-N w°D I-O~°N~ ~-Oam t-NC'O rNd05 FEa'> m t-NO Od m m or rn m OI N C ~ O1 N C C O U C N O ~ Olr 'O 'O 9 .9 d N `~ a '~ N wa a N n a N j n ~ a d L v u T°i o ~ ° ~ L N :., m N Ol m O N N` N N N N C p y y y ~ O C 0 j `O ~ O C 'p ° y 0 E N w d V o.. ~ o ° N ._ o. N ° °' ~: U U N C. m C N Ty p N N N m ~ N E c~ o N c N N c N J n E : y N Y N J N m N 0. n N y N .O N Ep ,. N N r d 9 N - - O t0 O_ C N C O _. p~ 0 O C_ O~ C $- O j N-€~~ ~ c-€ N'EN W o~•€ ~~ m ~~ 020 d amm O an do.o j ac.n Rma O an aN`o w QmN W r N M q I~ 7 a ~ f0 I ~ ~ V ~ _ _ - "rn:m. E X ' X X X J X X X X X C O . ~ fi E 0 U m_ LL rn a E .O '.C-. m aci aci aci nci C m: e m' ~ n m c. m n m n o. or^ m o, E ~ Q, . O O ^ m ^ m O c ~9 m . m m m m ~ m'Sm LL ll U.. Ll. Ll Q. m O dm mEa `o N -~ -~, a ~a mmmNm od mamm ~ L D N> U ~ N ~ ~UnUm c 3w NO ~ U C L¢ . C NO a N d N m N ` m m m m N n N ~ • O $ ¢ .. O U n L Ol O' d C F d ~ ~ vi a L a m o d a m d d~ m n c m Q~~ ~ a J y H '~ r .N. m ~ 3 $ o o ~ y3 cm ~€ 3 N c ik ~ o ~v Y o Ed ~ u ~N O >. a m N ~ ~ m L ? > . m ~ m OI N d y 'C N O C ~ aN ° '•- 0l j O C ~ mo aL` O a m N U n E 'c m ~£: ~ ~ u m v m - n mEco $ £ Dv a€ m nc J'm `~ m mamma m ,~. . o m v >o£ $ ~=~ ~ Y~o m o Na J m s o' c a LL m . ~ ca ~m v ~ ` . u i er x mo c a ~m O ay ° c m m m 'Z m c p a 'a m m ~ c 9£ L E-« ~ ` L m m m m o~ m w m ~ m 2 m a 'm a i m£ E m m E y : mom: `o o O` m c v aw 33 o~£a N m m w ,.°~ oL m . a m- N . V i m r- m N t9 m o m ° a ~ca • ~ O~ ad a m~. ?im i~ E c ~c i~d O a a ~ ~ mw ' m " mnm ~ G ry m J m N C -j C •> C N O- 0 01 « m N O s V U y y L C N a N N a w ,,, L N L m ' N. 0 • ~ X d m a l y u~ L > a N O G O. C B wn m ~° o O • a~ C O d o '~E ~. C ada~ m: g E ~ amc ca 3. -.'9mc o ic v? m y U wEoym. caommm E>a. . aocoL u i mar `o cHTi , , OOm N~-•E 0i0o ~ m O ' L NC m mr0>L. ~ J•L £ d ~p.10 m0 a-a TNT N m N J mma Naa>C aCfO mm an Nm ~.N NQ `• N m ~' ~ :o m N C ~ L N >. U ~~ O 2 0 0!0 l0 L y [0 S d fp - m C m m m m 9 .- d L ^ U N -C a _ N O Q O a e1 O m C m ~. m N 3 a p1 0~ C N ~ N C C m d J - N d £~ £ d a m .O p1 . m LL L y N ~ m> .. Y m N o c E L ry LL C Onq U m m C m . . O fA N o r m N N U N ~. d m~ 3 a 3 f0 > N N dL_. d Qu_ m £ m c Z > 10 m£ y U .O C m ~ a m C a m ~ L ~~ L1 En € N> ~ 'C ~ ^ ~ of m m `O 3 m. m i «>. nm~a ~- mm ~ n m~ca Ncu >. c L.-.C m`•d i~ aa m>m Na•o av~ Er L° ~Htaa aNlc~°mn °mcm cwm m aomonm LL m~-a ~E > ui ~'~ °1~m 3~F m gm c ' m i o .tea a Jm v aa.>. of0^~mmC ~ m ' , c.-Lmm L . H"~ c . mavi° ~ m ~ O m vmaio G_ N a U N o v m^ a l0 C m~ N ~ m~ U~ 0 y 3c m m d F- G ? •N m _ .a O~ N m ~ ~ O C U r ~ C d L ~ N N J C L O v a E .. - m m w. yy O) C_ lV LL' ~ Vl m f C m J m o L° "' m ~ ~o a~m a~ ~.v c.c .~Eo .n .~iocmm " °pE` °~ ;m~ ~mE m ~~~ ama Nx ~^ NL O ~ma^¢ ma¢ oHa¢LL a n~ n: ' a m • =' . _ ol . . : mo.L L m Y ~~~2 6 O ~m C md 9 m.$3 L~ O' = U O m o . L m a c o • F-03 am~N. ~ a¢ 1u .ri ti v ai rn mu. me Hnn d~c_.E E rn or m c ` rnE c c ` a c a v °' '~ a a .° L a s L L ~' m c m e m~ m m .. m 3 o a • o E o O m N o o `O C O E, > m ac u u mm ~ ~ ~ c i cEm m m o°' c a a ^~m N N a~ J ¢ y ov o m w m°E y `o ~ o~~o. o€ `o~ Q `o `o€ _ a`a anc~ a`a as n aE. an o ` ° ~ m `4 n m m Ja rnmEl = x X ' _ ~~a ~ X ~ ~ X ~ X ~ X C O . ~ 6 E 0 U _ m ~ o .: ~ O C'- m LL C m C m y C _O ._ m m C r 0 r C r 0 ~ ~ C C .. ' 0 ~ O ' 0 ' ~ d_T.. p y m d ~- m n y (n m y n-- fn C m y _ p d YI C.'E. 0 0~ ~ ~~ 0 0~ o m 0 0 c Hg. mmE mmQ cc¢ a i ~Eomm m. 'c 'cC 25p 2'cp or y~c m m m m o U m= U J d ~~ aao am¢ aa¢ aor-am C . ~ O C ~0,3~ ~CI,a O)~ YNOy CL NA ~pNNy~ m ~ D . .. ~ T m "' T~ L m O m y a E .-[ N L b 9~ O a U d 0=~ U _ O m m N m a fm/1 L ~ y~ 0 fA U J G ~ c E d >E a O P N a O .~ N~ C J N > EE nm m a~c'da m ° o~ 10 ' o c ~ m i ^ E a g c Lc^ ~~.~m NVa .,m TNm~m> a.-.Lm nr ~' ~ m ` y o n°mc€~m ~ : 3Lm ~~ca o qmq avd t o . a i 3u crnE>.-: w mm y c. o~y> ci3Oa ~~z "n«` ec x~~°" m c ~~ m a m m m a E ` UmFa o ° ` °p m E ' a ° c $ o ~ 3 ~ . ° . o m5 v cc '. o m h E 9 ~ o c E d ~p u a m._ Y m o n o~ o> . ~ Em m '. c oaci `o ~?20•-'9~ o2~m2E~~ o s . Ed mc ~'a , w Ut 'O _ o . OCCC E ON C VNC 6E L~ D'~ ' ° n CT O ~ ~ Tm N n~ ° ~ ~~n~ ~ :m K ° Ea oc~J° ° o . ~~ °c ~:. ~. -~ ~ o 9 O C ~ ~ m -• m . v_ - ~ rnm °o .~+ c v`a'moami "`° 3am~=" vr~v a•c'cm. ~.d EM rd ~.~ a> '. a dmac 2°' n>m >o ~:. ~«~ m`cQaci .. `o " re m ~ aEi~ mm ~ i :~. ':. mind mEof ,~~+~cp~c~ ~~o-my •9Q u L E W M o E c ~n ' a ~ 9 c ":m m an d m y ~. v $ r s m ° i c s d o a . c v E o m m m_ ri 3= a m•- ~ ~ o 3F -~ 3 m .... d` ~` c o ~ at nm' w ' a~'o-y n~6mmao `om_ wa~npU mZ mH°EKa ! T f0L L a~ O,~O N NdLr N L C • • y ~n y LD F. a O ~ .. O y > U)dd~ Vd)m« m ' O Ea yL ~~ ` v y ~ y~ 0 T .__ y L $m5 a i UEU ma d o On OL m m mcD,NOamtu LmmmUt ~nm'06Om mL m ~ ... vim mo~ ' ° n~. 'O~Sy, ° ?L Oya vn~Eam-U min a E~~''o I m ~ o , - >.w m mm 3 ~° ys y c co 'sec mEw:-mo0~w c o mo E co.TCCa ia ~~ ~ y ~m ou in amE m Eo~59t odn:?moom01ca~Z m ` ` ~ r To TC _~ o ~3 m•c my E'-cEov E~ oE m ~ a°i ~, mwm ac ncai' 30 9 mdy$°E edmto nQ~f'n4oo':°~ U~$=gym @-p cm ; O C O` (q d ~` U I U y- . , `O N m d Oy y n N U C (h L d 0 O O~ C n 0 0 L Q m ^ N X c Ec ~ E • . ' a•E m. 9 y a d~=?~ _: c mO ov t-d amm m¢cn i- oo m m m y m y V m F 6 F-U H m F- o ~a ~ m. O~ c T ° U ma °!t c ` a v c o •p m ~n o a. c c m `p' n E : o :° ~ ~ " 2 '9 0 ° m ~° m C7 i ~ m am vHC E` ~ `o ~ ~ v ~v ~ m~ ~a- N C N o C N O~ J F O ~ O " ~ ~ Z O ,r m L . ~' • ~ N ~ y O'C O [ •C `m ~ pp . O G ` N ~ ~ C d N 6.d : ~ O Q F d d~ aL-~ Q2'. ~~a c ' a ' rn' m E X X x i x ~~z ~ g g ~ ~ C O . ~ 6 E 0 U a ~ C D _ a c C O N N'T ~ N.- C ° > m N.. °_ > QI ° y E °.c a moEc m ~~ ~ d~ L. F.., c ~ c ~Q ° c•~ s C ~O,? ~ ~ m '~ ~ m~ 0 0 o N r p ° m r o N E U ~~ ~ Y am ~ ~ n ~ ~ no m _ N N C:~ V N y o U N N yo ^momo omE ~do~`~ ap~am aor- apppo o.'°~m yo« o mg~3m ~~ :91°~yaci m~~zm °og .: ci~~cN y°o " . o9my ~c.N.vn~ ~op>. aci ~~m a o¢~ ma ~' E~aN N 'm cw O om d a ' N mo °m ~ rn C UN~p°: a> c j ` ' o ECm'° ~° m E.dt c o~~ • D ' n mo ~ °d ma yro~ o ao°E. mncN ~~ cL Nnw Ea ~ . m .~ 0 5 m~ N n E~ o > m a u> o U ° o°° g ~ _ ~ ° m N a~ u p« c y a y w ~° r° ~. N` y Z N LL - U a N d L '~ c d d X N E c~ dog~ F.., n f0 ~ N. U~ E o` m2~E l0 n°EE E ~ L C m „ m y:.,d ma~m;°m: r N N c:~ =`o m~p@ ED~~~' v~C7 .. a z a ° W C ' «° n y n ' °' . ~ m ... odd ~~ c `.~ rn - -' N m. d c >, a c i i c N2' o•y N' no'c ca !t s E~ m.. m._p ` E ms m -omac°. Lm o. 3 cd n mm Eyy~°'-o+' gE>L npd E~ F g- dda °y~ t0 a L oo~ wdNm-°o at'oa a~dogo~`~ cnd~c0 ~cm ° ~ U N y 'j d j- N T C O O' o E o ~ l d m a C > d~ C C C .= C N {0 a U.- C~ N O Q N w N O O N N N S« C O T._ « O ~ - d a C .J ~ C f0 t0 G .~ ~ d O E d> ^ OTO . O ° y. ~ ~ UU,~O ~d~Na' Q p ~ OO O ~~ d yNN ~n g' , LLV pNC ,, ,~' .N°. _~ T'mr L01. ic° g ~ ~ ~ao`on mmrn ate °O «m acicoUu om a °~$E t ° m o.ua c E 'C lp N :~ O U L N N 3 ga $-- mmt L L " E > N > > N C t0 ~ E ~r N ~ 6'C t0 f0 W. .. (~ . 0 'L 'C N F C ... („) N N • N `~ N N « d N N « ° 'O d 'C - C N 'U L N C N O ~ N a 3 O~ N~ 6 N na,y° mE~«Ua aci °l. - OI a N G a«iom L°'`v >om°'^ 7 ` N N j 9 .p Qo~'oi~w C amm '. T.. N ~' a. N 6 0 >, N n p, ~ ~ C~ L C O D aN o ~ N n° -- N U = O C U ~.v«~. E~yn ~e m n Q ~;mce da C Ec. m om <^'E' t do.m °i".'~u >cU d > ° o d« ~,°La EE«nc€= ~ .D a 3ydo w°~.~.. `oo oN m>.U m~ ma ~?t ooi« mo €o ° °J°y.'om. 3a € ft.o«3v>m ccc. m rn - ry C d° 9 .N N d~ a 3 y °~ a~ m N C a U >' ~ ~' ~` °' T' N t O^ C ~~ ~ ~LC~a ° ~~ . m~°9€Eit rcoe ~~. dvc °nc m ~yoN NN ao~~c , odoE m ny«" 10 o oi ~-` °v ~m ~nO 3. aEwn ~.~~am~v omm X . E. . _ p °m~ 01 ° , ~€~~'i o $~ma a i u ic i a,L°zEhE~ m$ m « r y ~ a ° y i. a °' o~ °'m'm °' a ~. i n s o ' ' Hoag y-og NS«m: a im~ ¢LLaa c'v . c t-oi« _ C d a o ~ C 'a' N ~ ~ c oam~OO .9 ` coo a E €NEc ° L cm ~ o a o~dm~~ a10ir c i ~ ° 3 ' _ N a H c ° L ..~ E ° v `~ m ~ a,H ,,,QQQ ~~~ _ ° ° ~E f'. C 3 C N U~ N Na d m o. p m > N N o E a ~ N N o o~ F o~ y . ~ o a~ g.y. ~L~`m aui ° g>oLn dn~n«~¢`~; do dm~co e ~ 5~ N Y m; Ei' X X . '~ g:z ~ g g c 0 •a m c E 0 U a ~ o ~ c o c o a ~_ o ` O m m U N U m U W .,J 'N m N o0 « m ~ aci 3U c c ~' o:c L° om. o i a i EEaE ~~ ~o . .C if F-ch s °y ~c s ° mmam °E :° ;GCp, C metro ~ . ~ mmr manim~a rtm x. mmr ag: iEaz ~Eo p^cOmomc ~Eo '~ o ~a o ~ ~~yY~~¢~ aa~ : . a ^ m~ ~' . .n o m E o o m o E E o d o mE aorc~ n.or aaa~Ft-~n aOF- m O m C O Z U T D m o ~ V m m m C_ Ol'O ~.L N ' C f n m C m O ~ N > U$ O Q C C ti vna'~ ` mace n~ m." v, °- m v ° ~ r E~ UL"> °$~'u om cmo as du ° m m a a3 m rnm« mE>,°n ~vm °a f m«a U m EO $ oo n d a b c N d om om o:. cam OE S o ' o m vi m m > , . >T H ~o o~ $o dFCa d a~ mN N ~~ m ~ mm T No o xc mo o o. e,m c aE ~ m " o . me m N do. oN m m a a m a a i rQ~`L°` m rn- Nm ~ m co ~E m Ea i c>, c m o° am m _ mo E' and L.. " ~m>' .cmo a'con~. ~Z ~c~ . 9m oa ' or « ° m E o >• ° ~mE O Tc nL S ~•- m m .mc ~' :' N¢ o$'O E: @ m. o.. v" ~4E o m .~- o. ~ ~ mLd ,E E'J m m x nm ..^ m c. ' C m L H G. ~ "O Y ' ~~" m E N O C G m O m N N m d _ C~ N ~ o n c a c ° d~ I- m m m m` r E E •°- o m v.° m 5 a i ~ o~m~~ z cZ 'a 2`od En ~> m do ~ .. EavE~ m ~Ed« ~. m. mao o -oEn 'vc o m~° ° c° ~Z m"~ ag ;gym 10E m o ac cd L m rn mE ° -m$=o mEoS o--o ~ m Nam o o a ¢EU m E~ m?? mm 'm `°` ~rn ~ ~mm . c ~~N.¢o« $t~ai u i `o«mL - ~'m >,. m $~. i : os o. 3oc ~ cmo ~ac~c L C m '- O -m,n dam L N m«~ C y me L m m O ... Z 7 , rn m m v m U o+cv mm C •- C C> o;oNo ^ d« N m N m N m N N E E> N L N m N E N ~ 7: 2 .N « m N 0 _ ~N C 'N E at ~ $9` n E m as ~ p ~ v E ~ L N c N 3 E~ ` V " o ~: o mwm~v d~~m a mo'am -ym ~$ E ~ me ~' ~ m °mm5 ~+ o . aEiccaNi >a~. >L m O "'..m y >~a. rno a i Ea m. ~ ~ o.~~am_ .comm > vmom.n c vc. mm=o vc=. c m~ o a O o~a~_o ~' j~2 m c a m~wEm. m `m¢o m.. ~'~tm oo'N mmt cEw tc m ~m ao~ no ?? m Sm o.a rn E~ Q v lQ i C"~ N c_r .c o c o m . N f i c ¢ o ' m m ~y~~, m r o '~ Emain .. °~L° ~ cmamj o E ~ $ a rnmo c m mm m~ a'c c ~` c ~' Q m c E m ~ ~' v mao$ L m m o ~ ~ m N m m.- "' U ° ~ _ m p m C - 'N y0 : m m m N C l0 -> N ~ m n m 9 ~ O f0 O ~ O ~ N O m N N ad~~m o oE ¢c9c a°n gp. ~8 acio> 'c i, c 2'•°m-~=m~E $ L°~cm ~~°J ' , ao ~~mom ~f- a rnUQ Ea O nD: n...>c F F-c.. g m LLmc'm m LEo m~10 m LL°m E H mZmm i-m~' no ~' HF« ¢m ~, or ' E °~ a m c c ~ ~ c 7 n ~ O ~ .c N ~ N 9L m m °O m U 2 'O m c c W c ° ~.rn m in c m 'o ~ c ' E lac o m 0 m `~°c cm m ~c mm o ~ o o ~ ~ . ~ a ~ ~ ° o «° ~~ t'i on°1 '. ` a o ` or oa'2 c a ~ a o a ~o. ' ~a E ~rn m > X > X X . X ',~gZ. . g g g g C O . ~ 6 E P U w d °i . c a •- N ..p. C O O d ~ ~ : pp « m ~ p C L N p ~ O ~. E L a ry~ ~ ~ ~ L O dt N O p 0 o> ? m c 3 ~.~ E c s " mom t o m N ~ N~~ 3 N N E~c > •° p ` c E o o o E o v ~5 a i >- N d m•O m > w m a w Nm y: r m w c N « d o oa m 'Ed dm c 3 - ~""y = dam m a i c a i a i ~_rnc E~+~' o°' m v _ am •xo ~ma nnL `m .o o~.z LL~~ ~ nnomEaa« o.N _ . n 'po N~ rn ° ° ' L ~°' a c ~ c_ n i c d - 3 >oN ~ acimE m o m ~ .c ~°' o>U.d . 3 ° o 10 m - o_ s a c 5 d a .~ rn~o da ~> v a ci o c w ~ ,-: a dr p°m o U-o m m c^ rn a ~ as Ec ~o do .~ o E a a m o 3 m ~ o m ~ •o aEi c~ w .; E °+ 'c-- ° d E~ -O ° 3 m c o d N n~' N N~ .e Nap d N U .C m~ a ~ Q ~' m p ~' ~' N N C O ~L ¢ O d ~ O ¢ O p TO pL ~ L OL > I- ' C ~ CL a a L O p aEiz«dm oop ~'o i i ~c«~ca 'E~ m m°'O~do Ep ~Oy ~ u p o• n` E . n. E a a i o.a n ~ 7 d~8 ~ m w«- o z: ° ¢ rn Ecu E °ng o. oz o o ~°° a y N~ o m m o u c v o d 8 .. L o. o ~ o m m~ 'W ~ y Eo ~ 5 a~~ °~ c ' g . comm. Em U...E f s m o. d. p1 rnrn n . v>-.moEd _ U_.E .y m T E p a1 d ~ r p ' r C N y« J L ~ d n ° C G ~ U 0 d y~ a m m a i ° ~ ~ ~' Y 6 ` c n 0 d - _O y ry d` d ~ > E i c . m ~ ~ d o nm ° 3~ Dy o ~... E m ami m 3 d ° ~ `o ° m m L . « ~ o co ~3 0 °E _n oa i. E w °'m ._rwmE Sao ~` u i pcEc°i mm.~'c m.Nm ~yd o~c ° ~~ . L°rEo ~ . o'~.._t,~ E °'~m O1 a o O d .. C S C X ... o d d m ~daN L°:°. m ~m m N- ~ E c- mzy~ ~° . m C ~m~ r:m .« m d o~ s C X ... O N d S a°o an ~~rn Ly m d~ c ¢ G~UUmyad m'~Op~ m~ 6N ONS d ?d 0l>-.Y 7O dd Oa mmC OOOI ~ a o m ~ m ~ d n p . U N Nc ~JCy~ac o E ~m ~ O1o U i. O m d d OI O L m d N a N C Pi .fi >a~m D a m N O U#3 C~ N n 3 J C O ~ ~ 01:~ d N p d~ d D) O m m U ~ ~ d Naamimadim~~dE~~coN am$amin~a ~ommadi ymrn O u i ~ aocmmaiE~~~o w ° i -p -° n a ° d 2 o ~ d a° A ~ ' > m ~ m~ n a ° o~ d~ s 2 y• m m y ~ m I i° a ' . d. a i d L° E p E•- o p v a E m a a a0 n a m c i d 5 x E d a o o c o E ~° x c ~' o d a a i i a o o m p o a v E m a a ' W amm m~ nC7 'c'c mF-'c Efg OaW m0~c¢ aii nd mLLa (gH ~ ~ E[7 •c •c mi-•c ~ w <s .. ..E `o `;~ ~_o-a ot~_~ ggZ C O . ~ 6 E 0 U c ° _ _ c c _ ~ O N'y~ C U • N C C O N N y C - U • O ~ d o ~ m 0 E c ;m E c ~ ~ ~ E c p'• U ` 00 O p~~QO ~ p ~` p~;C yg ~iEo~rn 3Ed~'rn ~i Ea m~ 1° a a~ca a o. oic~ a~cc a o m E ~'~ ^ d c~ 5 o mm m m aor-am aowam ao~aa E r a ~~ o ~ o s o d c ~ ~ c 4 `~ ~ ~~ s `" m°m 3 mom ayi ~NNC m° oaf 9 m~ «° ooa E 8 s o ° N ~ a ~~ > a d E o > E c ` 3 ~ ~ m m ` '~ d ~omca a c9 o amE U>`cE C ~O y ` 3 >oN E c m ~do~.. aL NnE LA ¢ ~ m o _..a o ~ im a tNE ~ '~ : oo~-~E mc`o~~ ¢ im ~ ~Qcy • ' m m m N ~ .c ~ ~ y =° U m a° E E ? c~ m ~ d m o a`o E c ~ 3 ~ .~ N m c E m N ~ o h : S E m y o c a a p ° ~Ev at a `~ ma m E°'S `mrn oU~°w dEd di°m.~ a~ou~ PLC o a~°$oo m~mEm om°-' `°,m~E 3a 3m 4 ~ c- ~°a°. !-.o S'a` yW i°cs°c a i . ° ' a a y a o° m o. nm ~ m g. mn, Eom?Y TC" L ~ Em T p y m p 04.~ o m y. L°EooE Nm `o d' a v -O oo°° ~a' m>~5f0' a2~ ~~`°~. m o d E o ~° m o ~ ^ E ~ w o m m m c m 5 m y= r E ~ +B m ~0 w 'v ' °~~m LLm ~m ° c nE axi „`g.. Yomo y a~cd~aLL . p) Spd m . > r poy~ 2 mcoV ° >$m t L m ~w.o 3 rJCd O La N 4'CC ~ ° '~L p C I- a N N d N vy O N O ti -' `. N>> N p' N Q L N `- : °' N NN w w i L UN y G~ O i C~ 3'°°~mE N ° m ..mo~~ N No c?~m o s - `m m'ma9 c i mm~'E m=m o ~ n '~° rn . a np °im~ a i .~ oc °' O~~' 'ny-oE~_ ow ° o o doi m~o;E mNU9c N m a - t~ m 2'« d t'm°m~..N_. NN> ~d N_a"' O)~~~p.N >~T~ dI-NdN O. N O 0l C N D E>.a vYN ~ y 0 c L 0 0 oo ~C J 0 6) 6 oE Ego (q ~ U t ~ L p ...>m 'O ? 3 a ` c~ c 9 ~' N N N m:U E-c N o c°i ~~o'>n~d r vK>' wc 3Ed Doti N ° ~'~L..3V m a > . c'-4" ~m 10¢ , w~~ ~ aNi m p 0. c a m .n _ o d m z c o: 1` °' >' - d r ~ n p y ~° o .. ~~ ` o d O~ d T Oa N vi d '~ d 1. .y '~ C~ j ° C y . a ' 0 3 .UC ~ ry O~ d ~ ff C N ~ ~`- m~9 a-Oa~wayi ~m5-OO. ~m i. a°i Y'2 .i°in v . aO3 ~m~ cm nE nocE ` r~0 'w ~cQ E n' c- 6 E mii amf=~'OE _ o €~m TN am3m am~oL a i a u . . a i y i . N ° na i m~ ° N ¢u.aa av c ,~ q+m . h oLa t m E m c i-- N._a¢ c_ --° d £ N o m m E `m a m °tc ' „ ~m> `.- v+ mm.~E c ° n ~ a i o~ o ~ ~ m v° c m m d a e '' d m y L TJ N N ` C O u N i~ p w r ~ N 5 c , f ° 0 °p~€y .: ° °O-€mam ~ E m o E n ~ m p a ~ n^m.: c o' o n.c m-dL m a~ ~ m v > ° -y E o -g -g ~ m y a iyt o •g -5 a~ 3 m 4~ n~° a~ o y ` ~ Q ' co ~ d o ' ~ ` a n a m ~ a ~ n E~¢ o~ O ? d T ~ ~ rn X X > > ~~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ C O . ~ c E 0 U c c pi 0 _ma OI d U 'G N Z - O)~ C O ' ' _ « U N G d •O d N W C ~U ` d N j C j C C C Q.1 j C N y t U- . . N ~ p .~ N ~,; O~ . . W O C C _ O ~~ C L p~ ? p ~ O a 0 _ C = U ~` U O C U N N a OJ .`... O C N y = ry a~ N o~ ~ c o ~ 3~ 4 y u~ u c a' , .n nZEm y ~ y. X01 n~'cc ~ E ~aZEa aoina~ ° E ° ~'Op0`o a a'oina¢¢ °mca E m « y~«~~~ .°cwm~o.~a Ei ~~°~ ~v~a 3 c > y3 " d.oyc UE cc~°yy~ oEOa ~~a~ . ~ v r o~ o . ~ °~c. ~m~pa~~> Non a~ c ' c' `° o A y cm o mm N>cs E ' ~ m - aEmNN°E!~minc 3m n ° Nm... mcom " « ~ ym .° .~m'c L'~"oo~ icoE 3 ~~Lm ? m t o > N~m~~od°~ c~~o y ~c =cdc ~ c m a 'p m ~c i m..d U d J L 2 i~ y~ ~ 0 L N C ~ N d y V « N Ul O ~ N ~ >~ . E N ^m ~ o ?? !a ca m m ca~o~°y$om caE oa_ ° J a. 3 y° n J ~ i y ~ 'a°i c a d °~ ~« m'_' r o ~` ~ m E c ~. N ~ W `~ ~ m °~ ~: . N U a c ~ m w L° L 3 v 10 . O U C O 01 N l0 ., !!~ O N 0:°_ 3 n° a~ c^ tt rn-• N n c y n,. 'd C c 7 o~Ea. o ->m t r E i° ca ° m cO~n c°iv ~a ddm«' ~ N O S W ui N> U N N O~ C N N ~L.. N O N L' C N m L N r0. E m Q a ~ ~cZa° .EaEiacy or m'-°- ani mw c'~~°c0da dt oa ° `°ndr wNN~ 0 c~.vcE c9 as m° _ . . v -°na;E~LC3[]dm a ~ mEwa y t0 0 a 1° m a« y y y E m L« O N N ... ~ T a .C L' O L A «. O N y ~. ~ .. d~~ O N ~ O C L C N D `~ ". >' ` .+ .L.. OI « 6 O~ c y« y o.L m.Cm m~vimc°mL~ wo m o.m=do. E.o 3'~ m~rn~ a~>.5'J y P m:c3no ~,~5mmw3E d~ Z m c~~ >amc°.owcmi -° v a~ i 3y « ~ ~' . V)~ O y L ° a a > ic O)E n LU N y y~ O N '0 O1~LNd~NCON C y N O ~ O UN . . 9~ N C N L ~ N N N ~' W N C . € O O. T m C N O cU".~c `° ~~ ~~ m °E 3 nE >.o ~m~YuE~~ m m ~d ` Vo Ec , ia~ai e ~ omaa,o _ _ 010'~°'dyo~ a~Ec _ mm °-~~~QCO•E Ncmmm doo.. ° ra~m°' ;o~~.-J,,..m m~y Z3 ~'~O a~v.o ayiv df0=mom '~aEiw'a i ami E c « m m o L o my y~ cm~~o~~E E c n3i am~ >i 9 a i i a -'a i m.' 3 » 7~ 7 m d ~ , a~c . ° N a n° n~a~~ ~ 3 2i >> u~ ~ym €~_ca -~o i=.° n` ` ~ ~d d->vnp LmcE H m oyo m m«c m m °~mn L2z >.~LmmLC~L--E Q - ~ d:o°c .cmo3. n N aNaa N v._ N F ,_ h Na o p~ o c c o O l0 a O O N ~ > C .9 a o u rnm a.° . b a a m c o ~ N m`; ~ E n ~~c rn ~ cc ~.: c W N E o ~ = m L' : E H O N N V'j O O O.C F > c°i n c a .° E ~ ~ cpi ~~ > . y. ~ y N {p ._ N N O C a U ~p ._ U W U NL ~y:0 " ~ 6O p O O N ~. N O O O p~ :=~C Oy C ~ ~p N d O> i N pp O C m a O) N `O n p ti C Z a`a~~o a a`E n3 , Q O ~.d .- W W " N ~ a E `o, m ~ x x ; .. g~Z ~ ~ C O . ~ d E 0 U w m` m ~ m c c `m o m c of m e mm !1 Y C 0 >m j~ C O ~~ .. d'~ > ID> C m n N N>~~ n~N ~ G oC 0 -aci ~ w OD =m c00. oaci yg ~E~wE ' ~ 'm c ~Em~m 'C m c }i E c. ' m a c t r O U N ._ ._ m a ~m E ~ _ C .p =' ._ U m C G .D ~mcw' C o ~ m •b >m o a i i' a ~ ~ ? aoma^ am aowam aoo 0 0 0 m ° v e m E c `v o m a c °m '~'. € c m d € c m c- ~. d m a«.. d d d N (/J ~ D d N C d m ~ O o~L n: m U ^ In O o« fq O D t u1 y C Y E E. 3^ E c m m m e v a I y .~ N e :. n m Q iq in c Tm m E ¢~m~'w =m ~ d oEdmn ~.E > m c c aci m a U ~~ 'y 'v m .3 W ~~ i ~ c o ami a m ~ n p; c ~ E 0~. aNi•O`m m a? 0_~ La~ ay n a c x E E U v o d m m m« rn 9 . 9? '° a m m'y y° c .'N m ` ~ ~ ? ~ U nU 6 O O~ ~ Yl N~ N N • . ~ L~ ~ O O C 2 ~ gyp.. 'yj m aE °~ E m == °1 N m'~10~ "' E E ° ^m x E m t m E 3 m mc ~' n m m o.,°t ~°~=> a~ 2' ai o ° m a ~ u i m ~ m m 3 0 ~' m o d . N nm mmmo ^t cQ ~^~aym ym _~ Uo~a~U UoN , ' m m om Nt m.-.E U~.. m a~ 'o ` «~ NO.. o , o> c- ma'~my E-- mam o ~ m m m i i m .C~~U~U~..OC. C a T ~ L. Um N> ~.-.c mUp~ ~.,.m CN.N Dm ~ . O I tO W 'o w ~ '° ' C vo m. ~ E NO og a.m> m ~'mai~E c z Q U m N ~ '- m V O N O N • > vc N U ^3. vm•~ N C - P; .. ~~ m C C m- m T m a m o ~ 2 E a y~ Q, m `m U c m m 3 ~ v d ` t a m E -_ m a m m o "' ' . m m c ~. >,._ >,~ m c m a m..p. m~ o a ~ CN ma ma m C 'O ~. m.... D dm m d0 m N~ S E m m c ~>TNa ~ E v N>Ea« ~ _ m m m° u ~ ~ m` E E m$ m m a~ a d ' m . o~ v m a° m ~p o n 2 m y m c a 'na ~ m~ m~ v o' ~ ,. a ~ m o rnLL N E °' e o y. m E rn w~ m E H m ~m mot ~~' `mdmmmma v:?~ ~n nami mmcmU w m tE N _ y m E E `- m c m o t a ova ... ._U " m.. ` o n °J ~ y ° m ~.~ ` ~~. .E m~mt Eam~m~a;o ~= . °O N N > N 'O IC l ~.: a _ N O m' au~ O a.~c mm ~ O i .. . _ ~ 0 . y m 9 r d 1. m W m 0 C ~ ~ Y C~ ~ E $ V O~ E m l > N ~ 2 L j a U > U V m U L U L T L U a C m C N C a m m C m$ y C~ m ~ C C m N m N Z V ~` V V '~ F j N ~ C m 3 ' CNO~'O O~Qa C~ mm~.d' C m~~ NNn mmm m« C Nm. O CO gin ~ m w'a>i~a>i am°a>>ai;w~~.. Em Ev~i 10 m nm0 > : mEy S ~.~m coo ~ > °'~m c~ ~ CT~~~~L p~~~-000m mW 00) U ~ m ._ O«O U m« O n0 V O a T m m.~ ~' TN 'ma n 'tOJ C O_„_ pN cOB 30 O- O « '. ~ >> ,Np 0m Nm C _Nm y C y« E y ^m C N m X ~~ m TC m ~ N Z P X X X nmLL ° L'O J O m m- >. m O. N 'C ~ 9 ~ m w >. L~ V L m . ~ ~ l T mcmomo.-amom~~y~. o3oom mod. mdm acm cp ami nom nc t m m~ m ~ ~ ~ L > L =~ L L ~ ~ ~« C n 'p. 'O ~ Ol N X m~ Q - C , l 0 f 0 ' m J LL m._ ~__ HOH={-SH NF20QmHQ~ J B mU0 m'- mom 6m C"m. C:. ~ . 6NC p W C'L O O o . '~ ` m a ci v m m Z~KK~ Qw0 ~c. F-^a i~ m rUm rU m c m c ' m v .~ v' ~ ~ E o a a ~ a`o m n ~ V U O) L c _ m m m m ,,, C ~~ C J m m O V .: w IG N m N a c ~ m ° v m r F. C C N O U > m~ U y N ~Eo nEao c N m m m ~ 6 m m~ O m O _ O « O C N O .j m N ^ ~ ~ L L a C p~ as d do C jL aa3 ~.C C ayrn3 cam` ~? y .n ~ a a ~ X X X > X ~~z ~ g ~ C O d 6 E 0 U O ~ m m C d a~ N w p % Y C ~- O d O E y~ ~' C o . ._m ~ d d O O L°rnfO aNi°~~>>`o Ea~D`t mrt° `o~m€ ~a~aLm v m~Lm ~ ~aE°~~=Umoycy~o.-O_'c~$r oa mo mo.= m N m N . 3w ' a d O m C o m 9 m m C J ` N~ ,p O ~ ~ ,. ~9Ei. a~i m `m `mo>j€5 mc~i,c cJ°i ~;~Q Ea a^m ~~~ mm 'o N~- N~ y O C> j N ~ U E N t= O C 3 N N m .N.. O) LL T W N~ d ~ ~ m~ W N L' '.. L~ N~ a~ m m m N E S ~ C ~ m C_ mI.C ¢ N O ym NNN >O m ? ` ~ ~O ` C m N 1~0 a i FC mtimW y. m~m m m ~ ` .. d m~ A >' 3 m w U m C N N .~ ... 7i. 6 ~''`O. ~ d d m ~ nd O N C 9 ^ ~ n C 0 0 0 0 r O m O C N N~ .U U E Z ~ y y m U ` n UO-..p m m ~nm N~yr`oooca'~~10 k'~mm~€n`Ein cLL C ~ ~. U~ O $ m L ~ E '~ ~ N O~ m N p J O m O m O a U N.L. m C L L N m _C T ~ Q COI "' d @~ w C n La m OU O~COO> 6C . ? Y, L C N N ~ n3 m coc~w`o~ E~3~m ~cw~ oaoma~` ~ v CO may mo m ,y m . ~ m tm my'cai5?Eacim°Ea ~mp°E~-°€~3 rnU ° c ~L c'c°.E am ° ••o y. " . . d ~+ r ~` m 0L. u p m N` m _ N c .O > .m. C U C m 0 ^ m r m ° m ~ ~~ w E L ~ oc .m Y.mm ~a~~ a mm o-c nm m~m:'~m v'~E m~~» N >~o€a~idocac~ontm~n~~NmEaoR~ gou>o ... o "On m~` c " Z D c am." E ~ ~2 `c ~ °m o~m o" "'~ lnU ~ ~= m m :. ci~O1E~'caa'L~~°~mEoEo~r ~d~E c~Ev ` ' `€ ` ` Ti a a P ~ ~ m c ~ ° - . m m o. ` °'E d°ayd c~ E m °oaQ~'rae•c3c dn i° p `_ o ` ° -°E~ -°~ ~ m ' m .oo U p o~ n a d v E E d~ ` m 3~ o o>~ c o~ c° E ~ENa E ~ ~~ 3 ~ ' Em mdm c m ~m ~ m-l!f m cyvo~~o .m Cy Ny a« N ~3 O1 U9 o~m a,n y~N Ny . ~ EC Fj~ N n U O OmnN ~~VCTm ~.Q N~~ O~V dN U~~pN UOO . . y m ~ O~~ OS . . Em aaccmEy-mmnc ~ m ~~~n~ ~U~3 umi . ~OGO.CNONd"j{~ ~NO>mC O~O$ ^ Jm O TTC~ d L N ~m f = mr O m C0 d m 0 m 'o '~ E m o m_ m y a Q j~ C a= N N L~ N ,G ~ a m m n C `NNLY `l '~NyLmE~~~CUC~ECO ~LLNpCp F. m~N . N~VI U Old '-L =L Q Q Q m m m Q 4~~ am W .. .- .. .r ~ -.- dL mF lf) L C C L Z 0 3 0) f0 .O O ~- F- t0 m H U m O U N C _FF_ C ~ C 4-. m . m~o.~ c E. _ o o m ~ H :. ~~vJ ~ n o o , my o~ ' O j ~ m 9 U ~ ~ ` m3 a w - ,.: oa rn a ~ X _ ... . ,~ g.Z ~ c 0 . ~ a E 0 U 0 L w y 'y ~ m c m > °i ^ d 'v ~o ~ C s o a c c ° m yg ~iE~ ~mN v na ~ a m mo''c.~ m=ma amimLm.rm~~yL'mm~ ~~ ayi 4'°- ooi m 'v«~«ms c , . c m2~a L mS « ° ~> ~~~ ."a m ~ ?'m ma~ yc i v>~o .a m L v ~ "'o E W Hm~` mnn ~cc a i ~ m~ a m~ . TmUn~ U L O mEy N m~ NL.. N j~ a N m N '$ ~ V N~~ U ~ 6 G m (n D D_ L_ ~ U. O N a m `O U N ~ L U Y m .::~ >. > .0. O Ot ` O ^'-' N O , mL~u2`°2~ o wa ° a~ E n o ° m 3 Q C- L N °'m... m ~>. ~ m ~ c i Em ~ r a ~Q~ m ~ E~ ' ~~m y~ T E ncm~O d~ov y m N ~ o .m~~' ui ~ ~ ~ L nUOUmmO>, mmNCm°~ c3a `m dY3 °' L m r cmV m nm° '+C U L L D C E m m t0 O m« ~ N N N N L. U 3 Q3NN 6 O m C t~ a m a Q n m N ~ ~? ~ da0a NC m mC~~j a m C O m ~> m U d N J m N W m m 0. >~. . C' OImJ U d N w O E C D) C m. N m y " oic ~~ L'~«mm~¢F-~E.2'm mN y3 ~'°omcmi ~ m m«d~i c'°' .i.~N C~ c L L m N« o t_ o~>. f0 W« Z` h r ~ U E O O. N d a O T C ` U ~` .m. o °' ~ D E 9 c L c•°c =~ c d Q n-.°-o 0 2' o `c Z' ~ m~ m ;Z' E ° m c~ c E m ?: m U m m' ~p L a .~ c4 O a m^ U myoa~U'3 mE.~naUi .c O1cc~c«0°' oc~m:o c4~ ay,Emd Ems u'o~ Ea cam ° d. _L._ m rn ~m((ll11~°=mvm~n d ~ N L a cmcm . n O y m a o 3 O O. Oi O m U p m L T E m W O v C a ~=on...c o c E « m U m Ol m m -omEEma `omm ~ N a m-«.N.° ~ ~ T m m m .- c y m m m~ E ~'" m'- c 2 c a~- ooom't'~-Oa°inc.~-aLm'w°iin~`3~~3am.^°oa~= o N>oo°~'c°.mc •d~m ° a , ' >~2'ac>aymooc mcNO~ y«vmmom 9d~oEv-rn~c~ma aL~c.~a;~v`i= oy$o ann„-¢a iw-° m`m omoo ym. m. c=a o~~ma ~~o.vm nyg ~'-'TmL ~mo > `` > m ~ >~Ti~~~~. CciLL U w ' a a i o . co ~«. m coca°c.. °--N@c~ maBNNE~mE am~ ~~.m o - E~ayiiEEm`odaTim:4~9Ecmm ~' °''nE nmoti cm~amcodm v«L N O nCOm nU E'~Nm CO «Ea"O 6L:~._ o ... o m a c m o m ° d m° ~' v m o ~ c m~ .y~ >> N 3 o d a rn.o~ ; ~ E m ~ f- m m c m a L~LgOC C t vL 2aa y~~>>L V.~N d~ a • O c._ p)C~ ~C ° C~-m . O. O N my ma n m'-Om Nmd~_UNemmn y YJ ~ ~ C 9 N y j N, nm>>N `r •-m --°m' ~ E r LL d E E N 3 m 0 C: N ~ O ~ ~ C~ C u. J C L C am mm¢~.o E o ao m.. o m o m m `o U N > L` ~ d 0 m 6 c a oacg'o' m .__ ._ _ ._ ._ a zd~ ' ~ m a. o o cz t-OtnUc N9 mad rn3 c 'v `g '~ n ~a m c of C m m c N N O v E c c ._ m 10 m rn m a c W O V C O O Y'~~U `o € m a _ N a` arc S c m o.a ~ ~a rn ~ ~ X . :: ~~Z ~ c 0 m a E 0 U 0 V O m .N YJ T . d U ~ T m dC ~ O ~ m adi aci . y;0. vrN O dW O~ - N W O~ - p.L o ~ c o " ~° W = c = ao c =m W f0 c y m 3E ~ d m ~E~in° 7 E m dN~ ~ r u r d c~ ca 'C m c o a n a a a Z E h .n da Z E f°n ao m a'oin¢~ a'o in¢~ L m O C W N ~ t 'p 'S ~° N U m C "' C o m- ~° r o o o m .o o- o- a n vi ~ i- ~ m d "U p m ._ ~c E 'c rn m m m °o c m o Q m d m m a v ~ ~~ o, a o m y ~ ~ m E a o v ° i ~ m m rn . ~ ~~ O ° 9~ m m Y ~ N 7... ~'O C U E~ L o c 3 - 'g a n 3 c m ` a o ~ v o o c a a ~ mm~m ~ ~ o ~~ 'z T> e ova -° a z~ O > ~ o. mcm>~ UI C o ~ a_c ,,... ° L m ~ Q O GI ' T 3 a m d m t0. _ ~ C m d ~ a b m a 9 y ~ '-y U 0 >~ n 1 1 m m C C ~ N ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ m~ c E. ami da c rn`c .3 ~ ~. m o ~ a'o mm m G m m j m C Z° 3 Z C° U> m N N C ~. m U E m m y N •p I N D) C ° m >. m mI N m U U ~t m C m N E U L. N 9 y m~ a C N .v > ~'~ ~. " ". y " °v ~ m y m N m v m ~> m c m ~ 5 a v. c° E m m c : u m d c c wao c A'- > ~ aci v ~ y° TcLi w E ° . ~a ?y Em v . Duo i. m . ~.m Lm~ ac~~c c` m m'mniv ZE`~ N'o v mp ' m m` `:: E. m E. m° m m>. °' m m mm v m m ` m 'm En 'do °o.m ~E-~' ~ b °-= m, ~m 03 a 01.. n mo,. ~ rn cca c ~ y.Nmm~ E. K ma ES ao cm>.~ c10 o m~O sum ~ .~~ y_o > c vim ca E a i o E•~°L.T . a a . ~U06U o= r.mN'> O°m ~ OLU o. ccm °$ a ed ym E' m"owE mm mdc ono« Oa C j a VLV~~p n = yy Qm OO~ NWUUm NY C U'OOS ml .~.m '. y, `'° ` E n m c w o ~ o ~ m s t m . n ~ ~ m ." ~ ` m 0 o. >' ~ 'o « ~E `m ~ ~10 v ~ ~ o m ~ ~ ' Uf m moL. ~ m -- ~ ~ m--mB d °~ o m v ~ v mm m.. c! m a~ m n E mo o s°~ 5 n~ ~ - o Tc co o mTc m m o~ c c , v Nm i a i c E «E NVa `Vi p m='~mU> a U 'ONm~N~. 'OmUdm mm '~JNO'~OOO~d cm mdd nyo 2~mcL ~° a ~ ~m~ornvi `m m~i=~ ~E ~V>i~m°oE m : ° «3' m ~~ao m:o ~ a` ~Eoo. c Sin duo c~ tc°~v ~`m . n c o. c d o m a~ rn_ c . rn m y -- m m o d o 0 o m o m ,m ~ 0 3 :c d _rn m e ,,, m o m m 'gym m N CT C CL O~«pC m ~~ OZ'000-V1 LQ j~p i . Lm~NNNmU :. 'U a O m m N -m--' d ~ ~ d .0 U ~J a ~= 0> pi O N N N N d..' tO °' N ~ m N m N d 6 m ° o n x ra a o E ~~ c d>>mL ~° m'm m ov- a -m o$ . mo---~ o EE r °pj oa m °o'S >,mmE E aw. Ea`~ ti m ti wli w~.~coi `m ~~UUUa O'aar y nH ~ °mm»S oa ~ L m ° E 'd 5 ~$ m s ti 'o ai F - o cd .d ci 'o ai H u N¢ H 3 m m c c o . ~ •o ~ ,p N d 6 U C m O ~p pl d m ~ C` -0 O :p E n $ .~ a f rn c c - m ~ t0 _ J 9 N V) C VI 4.. C ml ° ° U C m pp O C ~ N o ' y a` a ' a ~ o :'. ~ ~ o j rnmE x x X ~~z ~ ~ C O d a E 0 U C O C O ~ w..... U ~~ .~ U~ '._ C d d C d C d do m'" ~m 'E Ec Ec Ec a'c ` Nw~ E yw~ E °a'~pO nN ~O nN ~' n. y$ pC d._ d.. c U _ y~! NQ ~E _dQ ~ no~ Eo ^~ rn 00 rnm d ~ '? m° Em ° ~? m ~p, LU'c-~ m c ~ c c ~ `' .n n 2 - a n Z ~ y c 9 c 9 c c 'o ' a ' ' a a a in a oin inc~ m m s « d C y d- L'- G L U . . C d 9 0 O G C d O C '. d d C ~ T d C ~~ O C 'G Ol ~ . D ~_ ..G p°='~~~d d r d 'G u: ~'N N ad d ~ d VO L o-moon ayi x a ~c d ta?'9 od ~ n-ad n~ > - : m m c m a di ~ m 3 m m e d E ~ O E d d° m L° d e+~ « N „ ma~ °0 ~ m m c v « _ ... v a c w y a N d ~ m ~ v rn v gym ~ ; . wt 2 T !=_o - -- n u3'•dS~O = . ~ °3E'9 dQ a m a~rnL da mN O1 :c Ol ~ dmam d d d ~d ~ n ~a 'C ~- Q mn « d cm'~c 5 .,, 'c d N U p 9 i d ly/1 L W m Z. Nd d , ~ ~ N C >~nl` L Y C d (p d 9 d.-N'X •-•-'L~ :d > ° O d vy cLK d O m pU d dL U ~ LO c y. .ddd Y d `l ~ a s aci m 9 N C d 9 G p~ C d a d N .J ` N N m ~- N m `1 o .. d J« V L N> d X - .c . C . L'o'~10~ V dd ~ Ei° oca °L° O ~ N d d O d`mm E" d m v of ~ m ~ a~i - d m o, o ' coo o c oU a c .o d a] d o a ` ` an _ d ~ ~a dLLm d€ do E'n d mama~cm d - y ~ U ~ N E L N G Q N w N N T O G y y d~ _ d d Z V N a N L L ` a N O d C C~ 6~ d O a O O. ~ c g. ~ _~~U E _t ~`oovl vd at a`~do Ed U :: U r' • ~ E N U w N d' L ... O' C N N 0 - N L .~ m U r d U N ~ d O$ON L •. [ ' C ~ O): L« «LT N N~ U ~+ (A N~ -dm O'.. U L. . C Q 0 l O O C C- ' '. mY dV7~ W ,L.•a n 0 (~ a_ N d d j N C d d U ~p O O~ G~?` ~¢ O. a odEd`o, ~> L~c -°yP >.Eccarn!_°.~.'Ld., E. ~ m > a ao w~md ' a~ d 'c .. ~, co dm p m N my~dg` y -. ' y aOi . - m d O dm~tn ~O~ m cc c °.-ac O v rn `mc o 'O d~ E dcmcuiEc,pU d O d L 3~ L'O U 0 ='' '~ 3 N O N N ` d UHnm C~ oa d b w y O d d n E~ d :,, ~ol I- oN mm ~' O C E T m E d L 'O 9 a iv ~. ua ~ O d d~ 0 0 0 C o. ~=d ° e mwc ~oHd ~m omm::~d~'oi ¢. m j t 0 ~~ d~ m~ ~ U O d ~ 0 0 d 9 9~ 9 O C ~O nV O~N' n'.C. d d NCmUm aaa U d :- «yovLd='P~ O c~v mn r- dc dE~mn smm y~2`o°~~d~E , Ha m3 dm rw . ~-5~ ~'S H rn`' ¢ oU.n o o??tn Old v rn ' L^=°'mm a o `oc d v • c mom d~ C D K N y d N L N d U V L d d y L C U d N Z T G ~ U d L L O C y N O '; Ol d Old C y d , d ` ,.. ~ E L y ' C E O 'O (_(UU d'- U O O C O d C ~ C O d C y Ol d n.pp- X G ry L 'u ~ U a'G ~ O U T C l V d d 6 C« n l0 T m N d d ~~ V U N d d N p ~. E O d N L N C C N N pp O1 > "d- C~- U c.` t cm cc ~~ ~a`laa ~= y ano a.. aro.1 an Zodowa ~4®®EiV®UNI to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay December 20, 2006 sf-???7396 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ------°----------------------.....-----....-•--------------°--.............----..- --°----------°---°----°--::-.....3 2.0 Background Discussion-------------------------------------------------°--------------- -----------............----°--------5 3.0 Proposed Project-------------------------------•°---••-------°------.......---.....-•-•-- -------------------------------------9 4.0 Environmental issues ..............................•-----°..............-•----...---•---- -----------°----....................9 4.1 Aesthetics ..............°----------------------..........--°----------------------- ........----•----------------------10 4.2 Agricultural Resources------•----------------------•------------------------- ........-----•---------------------12 4.3 Air Quality----.._------------•-•------------------------------•----................. •--------------------------..._...12 4.4 Biological Resources ...............................................•••-°----- -----------...--•------...-°-•----16 4.5 Cultural Resources ................•----.................-•-°------------...... ...........-........-------------••16 4.6 Geology and Soils-------------------------------------------------------•------ ------------------............-----17 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials,----_---_-_„----------------------- -------••...,,,--•„---------------18 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .....................•--------------------... .......-•------------------------- 21 4:9 Land Use and Planning------------------------•-------------........_....-• ------------------------...........23 4.10 Mineral Resources--• ...............................................°-------- ---------._.._.........-----------26 4.11 Noise----------------°...................--•---------•--........--•--•---------------• ----........------•--------------- 26 4.12 Population and Housing---•-------------------••------------------._...... ........------------------..........28 4.13 Pubtic Services-----------------------------------•-•-----------.............---- --------------°.............------ 29 4.14 Recreation....-•-•------------•--------•------------------------------------------- -------•---°........-•------------•32 4.15 Transportation/Traffic........_-----------------•--...:.....----•------------ -------...-•------------------------33 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems.....•.••..•• ....................•...-...... .........._.......-........-..._... 38 Fish and Game Determination .................•----------......-•--------------.._..........--- -----------.........-----------••--46 Resources Cited sf-2227396 2 1.0 fNTRODUCTION This Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Amendment No. 7, Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay ("MND") has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15164. It updates the MND which was adopted by the Anaheim City Council on August 22, 2006. The pro}ect (hereinafter referred to as the "Residential Overlay") evaluated in the MND involved a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 to allow for development of residential uses in connection with visitor-serving uses within two targeted areas (Sites A and B) of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, to be accomplished through the establishment of a residential overlay for those areas (see Exhibit "A"). The MND and the terms of the overlay specified that the allowable development densities for these two sites would be limited to infrastructure impacts equal to or less than the subject property's permitted hotellmotel density, as permitted by the property's underlying C-R District density designation unless othervvise mitigated through subsequent environmental analysis. On August 22, 2006, the City Council did find and determine that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b (See Appendix A) were adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Residential Overlay. The General Plan Amendment was approved by the City Council on August 22, 2006. The Ordinance for Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan was introduced by City Council on August 22, 2006 and was adopted on September 12, 2006, becoming effective thirty days thereafter. This Addendum evaluates a proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Amendment") to amend the General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to allow., in addition to the development of residential uses in conjunction with a luxury hotel, the development of whotly- residential uses; provided that (a) such development is on a site designated for Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very-Low and Low-Income Families, (b) such development contains an affordable housing component comprised of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of residential units in such development, and (c) such development does not result in :infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. Of the two sites covered by the Residential Overlay (Sites A and B), only a portion of Site A is proposed to be designated for Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very-Low and Low-Income Families (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site"). Therefore, the Proposed Amendment applies only to the Project Site (see Exhibit "B"). The specific textual modifications to the General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan for the Proposed Amendment are on file at the Planning Department and are available for public review during normal .business hours. The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Amendment and to determine whether a subsequent environmental impact report (EIR) is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether this Addendum may be adopted for the Proposed Amendment pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15162, 15164. Guideline 15162 states that a subsequent EIR shall not be prepared unless certain conditions apply. Those conditions are set forth in the following provisions of the Guidelines: sf-2227396 3 (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance., which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or no further documentation. As set forth above, Guideline 15162(b) authorizes preparation of an addendum if a subsequent EIR is not required. Guideline 15164 also authorizes the preparation of an addendum. Guideline 15164 states in relevant part: (a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but Hobe of sf-2227396 the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum tb an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only:mindr technical changes or additions are necessary dr none of the conditions described ih Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative " declaration have occurred. Under Guidelines 15162(b) and 15164, if the conditions requiring a subsequent EIR are not present, theh the lead agency may adopt an addendum td a previously adopted negative' declaration. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§15162{b), 15164. Based on this Addendum's evaluation of the Proposed Amendment, none of the situations described above applies. As discussed below, neither the Proposed Amendment nor the circumstancesUnder•which the Proposed Amendment is being implemehted would result in any new significant impacts previously evaluated'inthe MND. Furthermore; no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impactswould occur. In additidn; no new information of substantial importance has become available since the MND was prepared regarding new significant impacts, or feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives. This determination is based on the following analysis and in particular, on the fact that the MND's "impact equivalency" mitigatidn (discussed below) applies td any specific project that would be develdped pursuant to the Proposed Amendment, just as it applies to any specific projects that could be developed pursuant to the Residential Overlay as already adopted.' That requirement will be applied through the ehvirdrtmental reviewbf any specific proposal that may be formulated pursuant to this Proposed Amendment, just as it would be applied through the project-specific environmental review of any project that would be formulated pursuant to the Residential Overlay as it was adopted• 2.0 BACKGROUPID DISCUSSION Adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. In September 1994, the City of Anaheim adopted The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP)and certified The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR No. 313 (State Clearinghouse Np. 91091062): This EIR evaluated impacts associated with the establishment and implementation df the ARSP and created a mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 0085) in order to mitigate any such impacts. EIR No. 313 determined that impacts related to aesthetics, airqualty and traffic would be significant and unavoidable and a statement df overriding considerations was adopted .along with certification df the EIR. At the time the ARSP was adopted, the Specific Plan area encompassed approximately 549.5 ages. The Project Site is located within the original boundaries of the ARSP: Since certification of EIR No. 313, proposed modifications to the ARSP have included seven amendments and four adjustments. A brief summarybf the Amendments'and Adjustments follows. As indicated, Amendment Nos: 1, 3, and 5 and Adjustment!Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were approved while Amendment tJo. 3 was withdrawn and Amendment No: 4 was included as part of Amendment No. 5. ARSP Amendment No. 7. In June 1997, the City approved ARSP, Amendment No. 1, which incorporated 4.67 acres into the ARSP Area. The site, located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, was immediately adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. Two other actions were taken in conjunction with the Specific Plan Amendment: an amendment to sf-2227396 S the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 344) was adopted, and Conditional Use Permit Nd. 3917 was approved: Incorporation of this acreage increased the 1,046-acre Anaheim Resort area and 549.5-acre ARSP Area by 4.67 acres. The amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan redesignated the 4.67 acres from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Recreation land uses. The density range for the 4.67 acres is Low-Medium, with a maximum of up to 350 hotel/motel rooms (based on 0 to 75 hotel or motel rooms per gross acre): ' Amendment No. 1 also reclassified the subject property to the SP92-2 Zone, C-R District.. Conditional Use Permit No. 3917 approved the conversion of an existing 139-unit, 2-story, 8 building apartment complex into a 136-unit Vacation Ownership Resort (known as "Dolphih Cove"). An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan Amendment, Geheral Plan Amendment, and the Conditional Use Permit. The Initial Study determined that with implementation of the mitigation measures in Mitigation Mohitoring Program No. 0085, there would not be a significant impact associated with the actions, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved. Mitigation Monitoring. Plan No. 09t3 was also approved incorporating applicable measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program Nd. 0085. ARSP Amendment No. 2. Ih October 1998, Amehdment No. 2 to the ARSP was proposed to add "coffee house" as a Cohditiohallypermitted Accessory Use ih conjunction with an Automotive Service Station as part of the ARSP No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Section 7.0). The Planning Commission denied the amendment and the applicant subsequently withdrew their petition at the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting: ARSP Amendment No. 3. Approved in July 1999, Amendment No: 3 to the ARSP incorporated an approximately 0.73-acre site into the ARSP Area. The site Is located at the northwest corner of Casa Grande Avenue and Casa Vista Street. The 0.73-acre site is developed with 44 guest rooms (part of an existing 100-room motel). The subject property was designated in the Anaheim General Plan for Medium Density Residential land uses, while the balance of the motel (lobby and 56 guest rooms) was included in the ARSP Area and desighated for Commerdial Recreatidnland uses. The amendmeht to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 364) redesignated the 0.73-acre site for Commercial Recreation land uses with aLow- Medium density allowing a maximum of up to 54 hotel/motel rdoms for the partial acre. Amendment No. 3 to the ARSP reclassified the 0.73-acre site from RM-1200 to the SP92-2 (ARSP) Zone, C-R District. An Initial Study was prepared td evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions. The Initial Study found that with the incorporation of applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program Nd. 0085 (adopted in connection with EIR No. 313), no additional significant adverse environmental impacts would be'created with the proposed actions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0108 was adopted, incorporating applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. sf-2227396 6 ARSP Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4 was never approved as a stand alone amendment. The text of Amendment No. 4 provided for adjustments to the ARSP Zoning Code including refinements, clarifications, and provisions to streamline the project review process. These adjustments were included ih the citywide Zoning Code Update which was addressed in EIR No. 330 and approved in June 2004. ARSP Amendment No. 5. Approved in June 2004, Amendment No. 5 to the ARSP incorporates approximately 26.4 acres into the ARSP area. The subject expansion area is located along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue to the City limits.. The expansion area is developed with a mix of commercial uses including hotels, restaurants, retail, and professional offices. The potential environmental impacts related to Amendment No. 5 were included in the overall evaluation in EIR No. 330. EIR No. 330 was subsequently certified and applicable mitigation was incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085a. Site B of the Residential Overlay is located within the expansion area ARSP Amendment No. 6. In February 2005, Amendment No. 6 to the ARSP was approved to modify the Zoning and Development Standards to permit convenience markets with the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption as an accessory use to service stations'in conjunction with the relocation of an existing service station facility with street frontage on Harbor Boulevard to a location not fronting on Harbor Boulevard:: The City determined that the amendment was within the parameters assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously certified EIR No. 313 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan: ARSP Amendment No. 7. (Residential Overlay) On August 22, 2006, the City Council. did find and determine that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b were. adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Residential Overlay. The Residential Overlay included a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2006-00442) and an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Np. 92-2 {SPN No. 2006-00036) to allow for development of residential uses within two targeted areas of the ARSP area.. The General Plan Amendment was adopted by the City Council on August 22, 2006.. The Ordinance for Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan had its first reading on August 22, 2006, was adopted by City Council on September 12, 2006 and became effective thirty days later. Prior to approval of the Residential Overlay, there were no provisions in the Anaheim General Plan thatallowed residential uses within properties designated for Commercial Recreation land uses. Both areas subject to the Residential Overlay are within Commercial Recreation (C-R) District Development Density Areas of the ARSP: As part of the Residential Overlay, the Commercial Recreation land use designation as described in the General Plan was amended to allow for residential development in conjunction with the development of visitor-serving uses. The Residential Overlay amended the ARSP to allow for development of Site A and Site B with residential uses in-conjunction with a minimum 300-room full-service hotel. Allowable development densities within the ARSP area were previously established based on the maximum capacity of the area's infrastructure, including in particular roadway and sewed capacity. As a result, the allowed density of parcels proposed for development with residential uses was limited to what would produce an environmental equivalent to the maximum hotel density of each parcel, especially in consideration of the amount of traffic at peak hour and wastewater flow as currently designated for uses that were evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. sf-2227396 The MND for the Residential Overlay evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the overlay and set forth mitigation measures in Mitigation Monitoring Program No: -- 0085b to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.. The MND tiered off of the previously certified environmental documentation for the ARSP area (:EIR Nos. 313 and 330), as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. Notably, the MND indicated that any residential projects that may be developed pursuant to the Residential Overlay within the ARSP area will be limited to a size that will not and cannot exceed the infrastructure impacts associated with a hotel project. More specifically, the MND stated on page 5: The overlay zone would be limited to certain areas of The Anaheim Resort, and the number of residential units could not exceed the number of hotel units proposed on site or result in infrastructure impacts greater than those projected under EIR Nos. 313 and 330, unless additional mitigation is identified and addressed through subsequent environmental analysis. (emphasis added) The MND contained other references to this "impact equivalency" mandate: For example, the Transportation/Traffic section stated on page 29 that although the project would increase traffic, "the residential densities of Sites A and B are limited to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel density. This environmental equivalent takes into consideration the limited traffic capacity and was designated and evaluated in EIR Nos: 313 and 330." Similarly, the Utilities and Service Systems section referred to this "impact equivalency" on page 33 in the context of water consumption and wastewater treatment facilities. With respect to allowable density related to landfills and solid waste, the Mitigated Negative Declaration stated on page 34: "the allowable density of the residential projects would be limited to what would produce an environmental equivalent to the project as previdusly approved:' This "impact equivalency" requirement effectively ensures that any residential development. constructed in conjunction with a hotel may not exceed the infrastructure demand of the :previously analyzed hotel use unless such impacts. are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review: ARSP Adjustment No. 1. In May 1999, the City approved Adjustment No. 1 to the ARSP,. which amended the setback and yard requirements to reflect the local street status of Convention Way. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. ARSP Adjustment No. 2. In September 1999, the City approved Adjustment No. 2 to the ARSP, which amended the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City. determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. ARSP Adjustment No. 3. In May 2001, the City approved Adjustment No. 3 to the ARSP,. which amended the ARSP temporary parking requirements. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. ARSP Adjustment No. 4. In April 2004, the City approved Adjustment No. 4 to the ARSP, which amended the ARSP to permit office uses in legal nonconforming buildings subject to the sf-2227396 13 approval of a conditional use permit. The City determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 were the appropriate environmental - documentation for the request. Environmental impacts associated with a specific office use in a legal nonconforming building are evaluated in connection with the Conditional Use Permit:.... application, 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT Purpose and Need The Proposed Amendment is intended to provide additional development opportunities by giving property owners the option ofimplementing awholly-residential development on sites designated for Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very-Low and Low-Income Families as described in the Project Description section., below. These development opportunities would be in additionto residential-with-hotel development allowed under the recently approved. Residential Overlay.. Existing Proiect Site Conditions The Proposed Amendment applies only to the Project Site, which is fully developed with urban. land uses including a variety of commercial and retail uses and two mobile home parks. The. Project Site is generally flat and vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. Surrounding land uses include: restaurants located to the north (across Katella Avenue); hotels and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway located northeast and east of the site; multi-family residential uses and a mobile home community to the south; and hotel and commercial uses, residential development, and a Disney employee parking lotto the west (across Halter Street). Proiect Description The Proposed Amendment would amend the General Plan and the ARSP to allow, ih addition to the development of residential uses in conjunction with a luxury hotel, the development of wholly-residential uses, provided that (a) such development is on a site designated for Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very-Low and Low-Income Families, (b) such development contains an affordable housing component comprised of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the residential units in such development, and (c) such development does not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental .review. The specific textual modifications to the General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Spediftc Plan for the Proposed Amendment are on file at the Planning Department and are available for review during normal business hours.. As the analysis below demonstrates, the Proposed Amendment does not trigger the need for further environmental analysis in a subsequent or supplemental EIR under the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following discussion contains a comparative analysis of the potential impacts of the Proposed Amendment to those identified in the adopted MND for the Residential Overlay. Each sf-2227396 9 environmental issue area includes a discussion of the existing conditions, the conclusions of the adopted MND, and the relationship between the Proposed Amendment and the MND's conclusions. This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to CEQA to provide a factual basis for concluding that the revisions do not require the preparation of a subsequent mitigated negative declaration. 4.1 AESTHETICS Approved Residential Overlay The MND evaluated whether the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to aesthetics. It determined that the inclusion of residential uses along with the currently allowable land uses within Site A and Site B would not substantially alter the anticipated visual condition of the site from the conditions evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. The MND also determined that there are no scenic vistas within or adjacent to either project site. Rather, the project sites are located within a fully developed urban area The MND evaluated whether the Residential Overlay would impact residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site, and determined these impacts were not significant due to existing restrictions which: limit the height of a building adjacent to residential uses to one-half the distance from the building to the residehtial zone boundary unless otherwise approved by a conditional use permit. Compliance with these restrictions would reduce the previously established significant impact to less than significant. The MND evaluated whether light from new development could add to the nighttime illumination of the immediate area, resulting in a potentially significant impact, and determined that implementation of mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a level considered less than significant.: The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant aesthetic impacts. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM I-1 through MM I-5. Based on these measures, the City Council found that aesthetic impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance: flAM I-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical' equipment and trash areas for the subject building(s) will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential areas. Screening shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspection. MM I-2t Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall include a phasing plan for the installation and maintenance df landscaping associated with that building permit and shall be in conformance with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and over-watering is minimized: The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition., all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed sf-2227396 10 water; once a system is available: The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed by the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District MM I-3: Prior to submittal of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would not create significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A significant shade and shadow impact. would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., eating areas along Harbor Boulevard, hotel/motel swimming pools, artd residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g:; residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. If the analysis identified shade and/or shadowimpacts would occur and the building setback, arohitectural massing and landscape requirement provisions set forth in Section 5.0, Design Plan of the AnaheimResort Specific Plan, db not function as feasible mitigation measures, additional technical review of the structure(s) will be required. MM I-4: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection or whenever established; and on'an ongoing basis, the property owner/developer shall participate in an assessment district for landscape installation and maintenance if one is established fbr the area encompassed by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. MM I-5: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the lighting system for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or light-sensitive uses. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light. spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this requirement has been met. Proposed Amendment While the Residential Overlay would allbw only residential-with-hotel developments, the Proposed Amendment would allow either residential-with-hotel or residential-only developments on the Prbjecf Site. Both development designs would be subject to the same restrictions and mitigation measures identified in the MND: The Proposed Amendment will i-equire development ofwholly-residential uses to be processed as a Master Planned Development. The ARSP requirements for a Master Planned Development include Feclassificatibn of the project to its own Specific Plan Zone. The ARSP requires that the developmeht standards bf the new Specific Plan Zone to be consistent with the goals ahd purpose identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan for the Commercial Recreation land use designation as well as the goals and objectives of the ARSP: The requirements for a Master Planned Development also include that structural height, landscaping and setbacks must meet the requirements bf the ARSP, and that development along Katella Avenue must be in conformance with the ARSP "Central Core" requirements. Because the Proposed Amendment would allow development of the property in a manner that is consistent with the ARSP and the property's surrounding uses, and given that the property is located at the fringe of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area with residential uses to the south and to the west across Haster Street, the Prbposed Amendment would not result in any significant impacts or any new or substantially more severe impacts. sf-222739b tt Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Aouroved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to agricultural resources. The MND determined the project sites contain no land which is designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide. Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Significance.. The MND also determined the project sites are not in agricultural use or under Williamson Act contracts. Accordingly, the MND concluded the project would not result in any impacts to agricultural resources. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment involves the same site and locale as the approved Residential Overlay. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.3 A[R QUALITY Aouroved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether implementation of he Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant ehvironmental impacts to air quality. According to the MND, implementation of the Residential Overlay could create significant air quality impacts; however, the Project's provision of housing opportunities near existing employment opportunities is consistent with the AQMP and other regional plan strategies to reduce regional vehicular trip volume and length and improve the balance between jobs and housing,. According to the analysis presented in EIR No. 330, the intersection of Manchester and I-5 Southbound/Katella Avenue in the vicinity of Site A would be considered a Carbon Monoxide. (CO) "hot spot", or an area where vehicle congestion has the potential to create a pocket of CO with the potential to exceed the State's 1-hour standard (20 parts per million-ppm); the State's 8-hour standard (9.0 ppm); and/or Federal levels of 35 (1-hour) and 9 (8-hour), respectively. However, the MND determined that based on modeling of future conditions presented in EIR No. 330, the standards would not be exceeded. Therefore, development of Site A with residential uses would not expose the project population to substantial pollutant concentrations so a significant impact would not occur... The MND considered the fact that implementation of the Residential Overlay would require demolition of existing structures and construction of new hotel/residential uses. Construction activities associated with the residential uses identified in the MND would be roughly equivalent to those analyzed in EIR Nos. 313 and 330 for the project sites. According to EIR Nos. 313 and 330, construction and operation of the Residential Overlay would have the potential to exceed AOMD's established air quality significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PM10) in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND, sf-222'7396 12 however, would reduce emissions associated with development to the extent feasible. The MND concluded that although previous EIRs identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional impact in and of itself, and thus, the Residential Overlay would not result in a significant impact after implementation of certain standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The MND determined that odors may result during construction from diesel .particulate emissions from construction equipment and trucks. The MND concluded, however, that these odors would be short-term (only occurring during construction activities) and would only be generated during the daytime and weekday hours of operation. The MND discussed the fact that future development could involve minor, odor-generating activities such as barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, etc., but it concluded that these types and concentrations of odors are typical of residential communities and were therefore not considered significant. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to air quality. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM III-1 through MM III-7. Based on these measures, the City Council found that air quality impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM III-1: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movement for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as practicable. MM III-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction df buildings, in compliance with SCAOMD regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emission from architectural coatings and asphalt usage: a. Use non-solvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate. b: Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent emissions. c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings: MM III-3: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall include, but are not limited to: a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover. in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable. sf-2227396 13 b. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer's specification, to exposed stock piles. c: Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur. d. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site. e. Trucks importing or exporting soil material: and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets. f. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas. g. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.. h. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed. i. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.. j. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts. k. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. I. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable., m. Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. n. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. o: Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. MM III-4: Prior to approval of each grading plan (for ImporUExport Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property owner/developer shal'I submit Demolition and ImporUExport Plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials exported from the project and options for disposal of excess materials. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sf-2227396 14 sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on project site. MM III-5: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control- Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department. MM tll-6: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property: owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors. b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design... d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to :reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water. e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center. MM III-7: Prior to issuance of a building permit, implementation of energy conservation techniques (i.e., installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double- paned windows, utilization oflight-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment's .provision of housing opportunities would result in more housing near existing employment opportunities than that allowed under the Residential Overlay. Thus, the Proposed Amendment is also consistent with the AOMP and other regional plan strategies to reduce regional vehicular trip vplume and length and improve the balance between jobs and housing. Demolition and construction activities associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those activities necessary for the Residential Overlay. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b would reduce emissions associated with development of the Proposed Amendment to the same extent they would reduce emissions associated with development of the Residential Overlay. Any odors generated from the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those odors that may result from construction of the Residential Overlay, including odors associated with diesel particulate emissions from construction equipment and trucks. Future development associated with the Proposed Amendment would involve the same minor, odor-generating activities associated with the Residential Overlay, such as barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, etc. Consequently, sf-2227396 15 impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts- would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Approved Residential Overlay The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to biological resources. The MND determined that the project sites are within an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim and that no sensitive biological resources were located within this area. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not result in any impacts to biological resources. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project site, within the same urbanized area of the City of Anaheim. There would be no change in impacts to biological resources associated with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently., impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Approved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether Site A or Site B contained any known historically significant resources. The MND determined that, due to the location of the project sites within a developed; urban area which has been subject to previous disturbance related to urban development, the potential for discovery of archaeological or paleontological resources or disturbances of human resources is low. Nonetheless, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM V-1 and MM V-2. Based on these measures, the City Council found that cultural resources impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM d-1; Prior to approval of each grading. plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Services Division, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined tc be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. sf-2227396 16 b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated town appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction. of the certified archaeologist: If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. lJpon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City to when the final report will be submitted. MM V-2: Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, identifying the certified paleontologist that had been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:. ; a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the ..sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological .resources are uricovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b, Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. o. Any paleontdlogical work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological :monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. d. A final report detailing the findings and dispositioh of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the paleontolbgist shall notify the City, as to when the final report will be submitted. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project site, within the same urbanized area of the City of Anaheim. With the implementation of the mitigation measures MMV-1 and MM V-2, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Approved Residential Overlav The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts in connection with geology and soils. The MND sf-2227396 17 determined that development of the site with residential uses would expose people and structures to potentially adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and soil - expansion. However, compliance with existing codes and regulations, including the Uniform Building Code and Anaheim Municipal Code, and the mitigation measures in Mitigation Monitoring Program 0085b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts associated with geology and soils. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM VI-1 through MM VI-5. Based on these measures, the City Council found that geology and soils impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM VI-1: Prior to Approval of Each Grading Plan, The property owner/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a soils and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. All grading shall be in conformance with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. MM VI-2E Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit, The property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on7ecommendations by a geotechnical engineer. MM VI-3: Prior to Issuance of Each Foundation Permit, The property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer for review and approval which shall ihvestigate the subject foundation excavation to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing: MM VI.4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the Uniform'Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. MM VI-5: During grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project site, within the same area of the City of Anaheim. With the implementation of mitigation' measures VI-1 through MM VI-5, there would be no change in impacts to geology and soils associated with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Aaaroved Residential Overlay sf-2227396 1$ The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts in connection with hazards and hazardous materials. The MND determined that development of the project sites with residential uses may potentially expose the public to a foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous .materials, and these potential impacts would be significant unless mitigation is incorporated. The MND evaluated the presence of one contaminated site currently listed within the City of Anaheim, and determined that that site is not in proximity to either project site. The MND also evaluated a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) located at the Service Station at 100 E. Katella Avenue on the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Raster Street, and determined that soil contamination from this LUST represents a significant impact related to future development of the site with residential uses:. The MND concluded that implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts in connection with hazards and hazardous materials.. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM VII-1 through MM VII-8. Based on these measures, the City Council found that hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM VII-1: Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known or the presence of cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods, in areas of former service stations, in areas known or thought to have been formerly occupied by USTs, and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading in these areas. Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor may be required. if soil sampling results are not available, or indicated contamination is present above regulatory guidelines. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place. in these areas.... MM VII-2: _ Prior to the removal of USTs, the property owners/developers shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection. Section of the Fire Department for the removal of such tanks:. During removal of USTs, a representative from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department shall be onsite to direct soil sampling. MM VII-3: Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer; shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Department. Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Public Utilities Department, Water Services Administration:.. , MM VII-4: Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a ..plan for review and approval to the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if a previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite. sf-2227396 19 MM VII-5: Prior to approval of the first grading plan or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area affecting the California Chemical Company, 1772 S. Haster Street; Arco Service Station, 1037 W. Ball Road; Avis Rent-A-Car System., 1400 S. Harbor Blvd.; Mobil SerYce_ Station, 1800 S. Harbor Blvd.; Shell Service Station, 2100 S: Harbor Blvd.; Texaco Service Station, 100 W. Katella Avenue; Mobil Service Station, 100 E. Katella Avenue; Shell Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Boulevard; and Arco Service Station, 2101 S: Harbor Boulevard, a qualified environmental professional, retained by the property owner/developer, shall attempt to contact the current and/or known former property/business owners to obtaim information regarding that status of USTs and/or tank closures at these sites_ Ifwarranted, subsurtace investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, and results of these analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation or grading take place in these areas. MBA VII-6: Ongoing during demolition. and construction, in the event that hazardous waste; including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. MM VII-7: Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit in a future mixed- use zone, the City of Anaheim shall adopt a "Good Neighbor Program" which requires future residential projects to provide a Notification Letter and prepare a Safety Plan. The Good Neighbor Program shall require that prior to the issuance of a building permit for a mixed-use residential project, that the property owner/developer send a Notification Letter to businesses in proximity to the project to inform them of the presence of a sensitive use (i.e., residential land uses). The letter shall request that the mixed-use project property owner/residents be notified of any accident at the nearby businesses that may involve the release of hazardous substances. The Good Neighbor Program shall also require that the future project property owner/developer prepare a Safety Plan which shall be implemented ongoing during project operation that includes all staff training, emergency tools, and first aid provisions, supervision of children or other individuals in an emergency situation, and ashelter-in-place program for when evacuation is not appropriate or practicable. nAM VII-8: Prior to the final building ahd zoning inspections for any residential project within 1,000 feet of a use that has the potential to release substantial amounts of airborne hazardous materials [according to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) reporting requirements), the project property owner/developer shall submit a shelter-in-place program to the Planning Director for review and approval. The shelter- in-place program shall require the property owner/developer to purchase a subscription to a service that provides "automated emergency notification" to individual residents (subject to meeting minimum standards set by the City) of the project. The shelter-in- place program shall include the following: sf-2227395 20 The property owner/developer shall tie required to purchase a minimum 10-year subscription to such a service that would include periodic testing (at least annually). The CC&Rs for each individual project shah require that each property owner, andlor project Homeowners Association (HOA): o Maintain a subscription following expiration of the initial subscriptidn purchased subscription. o Maintain in a timely manner the database of resident phone numbers in conjunction with the service. o Provide appropriate agencies (police, fire, other emergency respdnse as identified by the City) with information on how to activate the notification via the service provider. a The CC&Rs for each individual project shall require that each resident provide the property owner/HOA with a current phone number for the residence and/or individual residehts; this would include timely notification following the sale of a unit and would require notification if the unit were rented or leased or subject to any other change in occupancy. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project site, within the same area of the City of Anaheim. With the implementation of mitigation measures MM VII-1 through MM VII-8, there would be nd change in impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the sameas those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment: 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Approved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to hydrology and water quality: The MND determined that compliance with City policies regarding stormwater runoff and with Federal standardsestablished by the Federal Clean Water Act, along with the implementation bf mitigation presented Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b, would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels. The MND also determined that the development of the project sites with residential uses would increase the demand for domestic water supply. Sites A and B would both connect to the City's water system, of which the water supply is up to three-fourths from local groundwater sources. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not substantially increase the demand on groundwater supplies and that implementation of applicable local; state, and federal regulations would ensure that ho significant impacts would occur. sf-2227396 21 The MND further evaluated the fact that project sites within the overlay zone are located within the general limits of the flood impact zone associated with Prado Dam failure, and thus., development of the project sites with residential uses would expose the population and structures to the risk of flood inundation associated with the potential failure of Prado Dam. The MND concluded, however, that compliance with existing codes and regulations would ensure this potential impact would be less than. significant. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result'n any significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM Vllj-1 through MM VIII-6. Based on these measures, the City Council found that hydrology and water quality impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM VIII-7: Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Services Division, and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and, b. A delineation df the improvements to be implemented for control of project-generated draihage and runoff.. Bflflfl VIII-2: Prior to approval of a grading plan the property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval of the City;Engiheer, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall .identify the structural and non-structural measures specified in the Appendix 7 of the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project (when the project has a below grade loading dock, for example); the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, matntenance association, lessee, etc.); and, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. MflA VIII-3: Prior to approval of grading plan or issuance of demolition permit; and, during clearing, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the City Engineer. MM VIII-4: During project operatiohs, the property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The use of water tc clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited. sf-2227396 22 MM VIII-5: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property: pwneddeveloper shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City, certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans: MM VIII-fi: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install piping onsite 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. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development of wholly-residential uses within the. overlay zone. Development would require compliance with the same City policies, Federal Standards and mitigation measures as required for the Residential Overlay. The Proposed Amendment also requires that"Development shall not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review." This impact equivalency requirement applies to projects within the Approved Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's impacts to the demand for domestic water supply as it relates to groundwater will not be greater than those impacts associated with the Residential Overlay. With the. implementation of the above mitigation measures, and in light of the "impact equivalency" requirement for infrastructure, there would be no change in impacts to hydrology or water quality in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved .Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment.'. 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Approved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to land use and planning. The MND determined that the development of project sites within the overlay with residential uses would require demolition of existing uses, such as commercial areas in both Sites A and B and a mobile home park in the southern portion of Site A. The MND determined that the removal of these land uses would constitute physically dividing established communities. The MND concluded, however, that implementing the Residential Overlay would unify development within the area... The provision of residential uses would off-set the impact associated with division of the existing. residential community found within the mobile home park. The MND further concluded that the addition of residential uses would also serve as a transition between existing residential uses in the perimeters of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and determined that thiswould likely contribute to the ultimate buildout and success of the Anaheim Resort Specific. Plan area. The MND determined that development of project sites within the overlay with residential uses would conflict with existing land use designations established in both the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would allow development of residential uses to compliment the established development criteria of the Anaheim Resort, thus creating a uniform development area that will be consistent with the sf-2227396 23 area's General Plan and Zoning designations: The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to land use and planning. The MND identified the following previously approved mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to land use and planning to below a level of significance. MM IX-1: Prior to approval of any final site plan, final site plans will be reviewed for .future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area for consistency with the Specific Plan. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would require demolition of the same existing uses on the Project Site and would thus have the same impact of physically dividing an established community. Similar to the Adopted Residential Overlay, the provision of residential uses by the Proposed Amendment would off-set the impact associated with division of the existing residential... community found within the mobile home park.. In addition, the Proposed Amendment would. only allow the development of wholly-residential uses within the overlay zone when such uses include an affordable housing component. Such uses would be consistent with, and in furtherance of, the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. The Proposed Amendment would modify the General Plan and the ARSP to allow wholly-- residential uses.: The Proposed Amendment will require development of wholly-residential uses. to be processed as a Master Planned Development. The ARSP requirements for a Master Planned Development include reclassification of the project to its own Specific Plan Zone. The ARSP requires that the development standards of the new Specific Plan Zone to be consistent with the goals and purpose identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan for the Commercial Recreation land use designation, as amended by the Proposed Amendment, as well as the. goals and objectives of the ARSP, as amended by the Proposed Amendment. The requirements for a Master Planned Development also include that structural height, landscaping and setbacks must meet the requirements of the ARSP, and that development along Katella Avenue must be in conformance with the ARSP "Central Core" requirements_ Implementation of mitigation measure MM IX-1 would help ensure that development is consistent with the ARSP and the new Specific Plan Zone.: Because the Proposed Amendment would allow development of the property in a manner that is consistent with the ARSP, as amended by the Proposed Amendment, and the property's surrounding uses, and given that the property is located at the fringe of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area with residential uses to the south and to the westacross Haster Street, the, Proposed Amendment would not result in any significant impacts or any new or substantially more severe impacts: Economic & Planning Systems' (EPS) Final Report The Anaheim Resort -Focused Site Analysis (June 2005), was prepared for the City of Anaheim and evaluated market conditions related to residential development on three sites within the City of Anaheim, including thee. project site covered by the Proposed Amendment. The Focused Site Analysis considered the.. property subject to the Proposed Amendment "potentially appropriate for residential development since multiple apartment projects are located in the area." (Focused Site Analysis, June 2005, Page 21.) The June 2005 Focused Site Analysis also found that: sf-2227396 24 "The site's freeway visibility and access could help support commercial uses fronting on Katella Avenue. However, its relative isolation from Disneyland and other commercial uses, and the existing revenue-generating mobile home park, are limiting factors for development of visitor-serving uses." (Focused Site Analysis, June 2005, page 21.) The Focused Site Analysis concluded that the property subject to the Proposed Amendment is not currently appropriate for hotel development due to market conditions and will not be able to absorb hotel units for at least 24-55 years. The Focused Site Analysis further. supports the desirability of this land use conversion by citing evidence (i) of multiple apartment projects located in the area, (ii) of short-term leases on the existing units at the mobile home parks, the current use of the property, (iii) that lost revenue from loss of transient occupancy tax would not be material considering such revenues would not be realized until hotel build-out of the site, which could take decades, and (iv) that the site's relative isolation from Disneyland and other commercial areas are limiting factors for development of hotel or other visitor serving uses. As such, the Proposed Amendment would be consistent with City policies to encourage economic growth in the area as that growth is related to land use planning. A subsequent version (July 2005) of the Focused Site Analysis likewise concluded that conversion of this portion of the overlay zone to residential uses is unlikely to have a significant affect on transient occupancy tax revenues and that such losses may not be experienced until. capacity to accommodate new hotel demand is reached, which could be in 24 to 55 years. Without a hotel on the site, other existing hotels or hotel sites will accommodate demand that otherwise would have been accommodated on this site (Focused Site Analysis, July 2005, page 5). In terms of the Proposed Amendment's consistency with City policies encouraging futures improvements in the area, the Focused Site Analysis states that conversion of the site in particular to "residential uses is unlikely to have an impact on'lease payment measurement revenues (LPMR),"which are the "basis for payment of debt service for improvements to the area." (Focused Site Analysis, June 2005, pages 5 & 23.). Thus, the Proposed Amendment would not conflict with City policies to encourage economic growth in the area as that growth is related to land use planning: Also, the presence of ground floor residential uses will not result in any significant impacts because the property subject to the Proposed Amendment is located within an urbanized area where there is already a mix of commercial and ground floor residential uses, as shown by the development surrounding the site: Because the Proposed Amendment would allow development of the property in a manner that is consistent with the ARSP and the property's surrounding uses, and given that the property is located at the fringe of the Anaheim Resort Specific .Plan Area with residential uses to the. south and to the west across Haster Street, the Proposed Amendment would not result in any. significant impacts or any new or substantially more severe impacts... Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. sf-2227396 25 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES Approved Residential Overlay The Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated whether implementation of the project would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to mineral resources. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that the project is not located in a regionally significant aggregate resources area or a designated Mineral Resources Zone (MR-Z) under the City of Anaheim General Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral .resource delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as there are no known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites on or near the project site. Therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would result in no impacts to mineral resources. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same projeck site, within the. same area of the City of Anaheim. There would be no change in impacts related to mineral resources in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts wouldr occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment: 4.11 NOISE Approved Residential Overlay The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts associated with noise. The MND determined that short-term construction activities related to the build-out of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, including development of Sites A and B with residential uses, would potentially expose the population, both within and adjacent to the project sites, to noise in excess of established thresholds and groundborne noise and vibration: The MND concluded that impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation. The MND further determined that the major source of noise in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is vehicular traffic along the City's roadways and 1-5, and that development of Site A with. residential uses would expose the resident population to ambient noise levels in excess of City. established standards. The MND concluded that implementation of the recommended mitigation would reduce these potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible for the resident population. The MND determined that although EIR No. 330 identified impacts to the proposed residential uses along Katella Avenue as significant and unavoidable, the proposed change from visitor-serving uses to residential uses would not create an additional impact in and of itself, and thus, after application of recommended mitigation measures the Residential Overlay would not result in a significant impact. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts from noise. sf-2227396 26 Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM XI-1 through MM XI-8. Based on these measures, the City Council found that noise impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM XI-1: During demolition, grading, and construction, noise generated by construction activity shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., as governed by Chapter 6.7; Sound Pressure Level of the Anaheim .Municipal Code. MM XI-2: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, an S-foot-high perimeter of portable construction barrier shall be provided by the property owner/developer along. boundaries of construction areas which have noise sensitive land use adjacent to them to minimize noise impacts. MM XI-3: During construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion equipment and trucks .are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. MM XI-4: Prior to submittal of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted,. to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation .measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. MM XI-5: Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are adjacent to noise-sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure. that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. MM XI-6: Ongoing during project operations, engine noise from sweeping equipment used in any parking facilities located adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department, Community Preservation Division.. MM XI-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking structures adjacent to residential areas will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to parking facilities, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce fire squealing, .and tiering a parking facility to provide greater distance to the receptor. MM XI-8: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project generating over. 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final .acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound-attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, .aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to :meet City interior and exterior noise standards. s[2227396 27 Proaosed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development of wholly-residential uses when such uses do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. This impact equivalency requirement also applies to development pursuant to the Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's noise impacts would not be greater than those noise impacts associated with the Residential Overlay. Further, the Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Anaheim, as the Residential Overlay. The Proposed Amendment would therefore be subject to the vehicular traffic noise along the same City roadways and I-5. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, and in light of the "impact equivalency" requirement, there would be no change in noise impacts in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Aooroved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts associated with population and housing. The MND determined that the Residential Overlay would provide housing units in an area currently designated in the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan for visitor-serving uses. Sites A and B are both located in The Anaheim Resort which is an employment-rich area; therefore, the demand for employment associated with the population growth from the project would be adequately served through existing available employment opportunities in the area: Implementation of the project would assist in balancing the ratio of jobs to housing. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would result in a beneficial impact related to population and housing. The MND determined that the southern portion of Site A is currently located within a MHP overlay zone and is developed with a mobile home park: The MND further determined that implementation of the Residential Overlay would displace these housing uses and the residents occupying the mobile homes. The displacement of mobile home park residences could not occur until the requirements of state law pertaining to the closure of mobile home parks were met. In addition, prior to the conversion of the mobile home park properties, the requirements of Ahaheim Municipal Code 18.26.070 "Conversion and Reclassification from the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone" would also need to be fulfilled. The MND concluded, therefore, that impacts associated with displacement of existing housing and people would be less than significant. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to population and housing. Proaosed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Anaheim, as the Residential Overlay. Implementation of the Proposed Amendment would similarly assist in balancing the ratio of jobs to housing in the employment- rich Anaheim Resort. The Proposed Amendment would only allow development of wholly- residential uses when such uses include an affordable housing component. Such uses would be consistent with, and in furtherance of the Anaheim Affordable Rental Housing Strategic Plan. sf-2227396 2$ In addition, the Proposed Amendment would have the same impacts in regard to the MHP overlay zone and displace the housing uses and the residents occupying the mobile homes: Development pursuant to the Proposed Amendment would require the same compliance with State and City requirements as required for the Residential Overlay. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay antl would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Approved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to public services. The MND determined that development of the project site with residential- and visitor-serving uses would increase the number of service calls and required responses creating new demands on fire and police protection personnel and resources. The MND concluded that implementation of mitigation measures, as well as compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 16.41, Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee, would reduce impacts associated with these increased demands to a level considered less than significant. The MND also determined that residential development would introduce school-aged children to the area, and thus, the Residential Overlay would impact the Anaheim City School District and Anaheim Union High School District serving the project site by increasing the demand placed on school district facilities, staff and resources. The MND concluded. that :per Senate Bill (SB) 50, this impact cannot be considered significant. Pursuant to SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995), there are three ways to determine funding levels for sdhool districts. The default method allows school districts to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by that development and receive a 50 percent match from State bond money. Therefore; the payment of developer fees will offset the costs to each District of providing educational facilities to these students. The MND also concluded that implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts. The MND also determined that the proposed residential uses would create a new demand for recreational facilities such as parks. The MND determined that there are no existing park facilities in the vicinity of either Sites A or B. The nearest facility is Ponderosa Park, a 9-acre neighborhood park located on the southeast of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, just outside the intended service area of the park (greater than one-half mile). The MND concluded that although the proposed residential uses would create anew demand for recreational facilities; this impact would be reduced through provision of parklands, payment of in-lieu fees, ora combination of the two based on the actual square footage of residential development. The MND also determined that the addition of residential uses would create an increase in demand for library facilities, materials, circulation, computer access, and remote access to resou~oes: The MND concluded, fiowever, that through payment of negotiated developer fees based on the actual square footage of residential development, if required, this impact would be less than significant. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to public services. sf-2227396 29 Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM XIII-1 through MM XIII-14. Based on these measures, the City Council found that public=------ services impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance. MM XIII-1: Prior to approval of each final site plan and issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department fora review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas), MM XIII-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit television monitoring. and recording or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections. MM Xtll-3: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall. provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security.- patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area. MM XIII-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the.. project design shall include: parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department. MM XIII-5: Prior to Commencement of Structural Framing on Each Parcel or Lot, onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property owner/developer as required and approved by the. Fire Department. : MM XIII-6: Prior to Approval of Each Grading Plan, The property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements., MM XIII-7; Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit; to be Implemented Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection, Plans shall indicate that all buildings, exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. MM XIII-8: Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit, Plans shall be submitted to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including: a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads. sf-2227396 30 b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75,000 pounds. c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the Fire Department. d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan Area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer: The precise number, types and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart. e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remaih in the water system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm. MM XIII-9: Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit, The property owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrantlocation, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with required fire flow. MM XIII-10: Prior to Approval of Water Improvement Plans, The water supply system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire Department requirements: MM XIII-11: Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, Projects shall be reviewed by the City of Anaheim on an individual basis and will be required to oomply with requirements in effect at the time buildingpermits are issued (i:e., impact fees, etc.) or if an initial study is prepared and the City determines the impact to be significant, then the project will be required to comply with appropriate mitigation measures. MM XIII-12: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department: MM XIII-13: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code Section 53080 (schools) to the Building Division of the Planning Department. In addition to the previously adopted mitigation measures identified above, the MND also adopted the following new mitigation measure for impacts to public services: MM XIII-14: During project construction and operation, the City will work cooperatively with school districts to identify sites for new schools and school expansion. sf-2227396 31 Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development ofwholly-residential uses when such uses do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation; unless such impacts are dulyanalyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. This impact equivalency requirement also applies to development pursuant to the Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's public services impacts would not be greater than those public services impacts associated with the Residential Overlay. Further, the Proposed Amendment would result in residential development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Ahaheim, as the Residential Overlay. The Proposed Amendment would therefore similarly affect fire ahd police protection personnel and resources., the Anaheim City School District and Anaheim Union High School District, recreational facilities, and library facilities. With the implementation of mitigation measures MM XIII-1 through MM XII-14, the payment of all public service-related fees required for the development of the proposed residential uses, and compliance will all other public service related codes and regulations, there would be no change in impacts to public services in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Cortsequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. ' 4.14 RECREATION Aooroved Residential Overta The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlaywould resultin any potentially significant environmental impacts to recreation. The MND determjned that residential uses allowed under the Residential Overlay would create a demand for recreational facilities such as parks. The MND further determined that there are no'existing park facilities in the vicinity of either Site A or Site B. The nearest facility is Ponderosa Park, a 9-acre neighborhood park located on the southeast of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street, just outside of the intended service area of the park (greater than one-half-mile). Therefore, the proposed residential uses would create a new demand for recreational facilities. The MND concluded, however, that this impact would be reduced through :provision of parklands by complying with the City's park dedication ordinance relative to parks and trails locations, sizes and design criteria, payment of in-lieu fees, or a bombinatioh of the two based on the actual square footage of residential development. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would hot otherwise result in any significant impacts to recreation.: Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development ofwholly-residential uses when such uses do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. This impact equivalency requirement also applies to development pursuant to the Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's impacts to recreation would not be greater than those impacts to recreation associated with the Residential Overlay. Further, the Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Anaheim, as the Residential Overlay. The Proposed sf-2227396 32 Amendment would therefore similarly affect recreational facilities and this impact would be similarly be reduced through provision of parklands by complying with the City's park dedication ordinance relative to parks and trails locations, sizes and design criteria, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of the two based on the actual square footage of residential development, Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment: 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Approved Residential Overlav The MND evaluated whether implementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to transportation or traffic, The MND determined that the increase in local population generated through implementation of the Residential Overlay would cause an increase in traffic. However, the residential densities of Sites A and B are limited to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel density. This environmental equivalent takes into consideration the limited traffic capacity and was designated and evaluated in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. The MND concluded, therefore, that the analysis of the Residential Overlay's impacts to existing traffic load and the street system capacity would be consistent with the findings contained in EIR Nos. 313 and 330. EIR No. 313 determined that the addition of project-related traffic would significantly impact the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values at the intersections of Haster Street and Katella Avenue, and Manchester Avenue and Katella Avenue in Year 2010 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The MND concluded that implementation of the recommended mitigation .measures would reduce the impact related to the Manchester Avenue and Katella Avenue intersection to less than significant. The MND further determined that the impact related to the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Katella Avenue would remain significant, but concluded that, due to the use of the traffic generation equivalency, the impact would be no greater than anticipated with development of resort land uses. The MND noted that, per code requirements, a traffic analysis will be prepared for any development with residential uses. The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to transportation or traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures MM XV-1 through MM XV-11. Based on these measures, the City Council found that transportation and traffic impacts of the residential overlay-would be reduced to below a level of significance. flflM XV-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. sf-2227396 33 a if the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at LOS E or worse, prior to issuance of whichever building._ permit necessitates an improvement(s), the construction contract for said improvement(s) must have been awarded; and, prior to final building and zoning inspections for the applicable building permit, the improvement(s) shall be .accepted by the City. The extent of improvements required for full byildout of the Anaheim Resort are listed in Tables 3.3-2, 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of this Section (Section 3.3 of EIR No 313). The property owner/developer shall have the option to: (1) wait until the improvement(s) is constructed by others or, (2) construct or pay the actual total costs of the improvement(s) which shall include the payment for consultant/contractor services for preliminary and final engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way acquisition, demolition, relocation, construction and inspection, and any other related expenses. The City Engineer may make the determination that Option (2) may be waived based on the supporting environmental analysis contained in this EIR (EIR No 313) or in supplemental environmental documentation. The City may have the ability to reimburse for the additional expense beyond the. property owner/developer's fair share contribution of improvement(s) based on the collection of other transportation improvement fees or funding through other public sources. However, if a reimbursement or fair share program has not been. established by the City, to the extent that the property owner/developer's costs exceed their "fair share" contribution for said improvement(s), the property owner/developer may petition the City Council to establish a reimbursement agreement or benefit district to include other benefiting properties. All costs associated with the establishment of any such agreement/districtshsll be at the expense of the property owner/developer. b. If the updated model demonstrates the LOS E will not be exceeded, no additional transportation improvement(s) will be required of the proposed development. In this instance, the property ownerldevelopershsll, prior to the issuance of each building permit, pay to the City of Anaheim all applicable transportation fees in an amount determined by City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. flflRfl XV-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort Transportation Model to include the trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS "E" or "F" depending on the .location), the property owner/developer shall be responsible for constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service at intersections within sf-2227396 34 Anaheim and surrounding muhicipalities for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as identified in the City's Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15- 2 of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122. MM XV-3: Priot to issuance of each building permit; appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effectat the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and., participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. MM XV-4: Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent td'their property. MM XV-5: - Prior to fihal building and zoning inspection and ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established; and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association. The property owner/developer shall enterinto an agreemenfwith the City committing to such program and association and said agreement shall be recorded on the property prior to final inspection. MM XV-6: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the property owner/developer shall coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN), and shall. implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible. MM XV-7a Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services.. MM XV-8: Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: o Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project- generated trips.... m Conduct annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin and Average Vehicle Ridership. A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employee commute options include, but are not limited to, the following: sf-2227396 35 • Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as food, retail, and other services be provided.. • Ridesharing. A computer listing of all employee members be developed for the purpose of providing a "matching" of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. • Vanpooling. A computer listing of all employees for. the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpooL • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus: services from throughout the region., • Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program: A program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. • Target Reduction of Longesf Commute Trip: An incentives program for- ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips: • Stagger shifts. • pevelop a "compressed workweek" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a "telecommuting" program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g. computer with modem). • Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentives for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, Federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions sf-2227396 36 to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express buspools). • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special "Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction: , Ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as td put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. MM XV-9: Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Sighat Assessment Fees and Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefits districts which have been established.. MM XV-10: Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-" way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property: MM XV-11:' Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, for a hotel or motel development in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area, which exceeds 75 rooms per gross acre, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and City Attorney's office to implement TDM measures sufficient to maintain actual trip generation from the development at a level that does not exceed the number of trips assumed by the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development ofwholly-residential uses when such uses do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent , environmental review. This impact equivalency requirement also applies to development pursuant to the Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's impacts to transportation and traffic would not be greater than those impacts to transportation and traffic associated with the Residential Overlay. Further, the Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Ana'heim,' as the Residential Overlay: The Proposed Amendment would therefore similarly affect the existing transportation and traffic setting. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures., and in light of the "impact equivalency' requirement for infrastructure, there would be no change in impacts to transportation and traffic in connection with the Proposed Amendment. sf-2227396 37 Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new orsubstantially-- greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Aaaroved Residential Overla The MND evaluated whetherimplementation of the Residential Overlay would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts to utilities and service systems. The MND determined that the City of Anaheim, including the two project sites, is served by a "comprehensive sanitary sewer system and no wastewater is discharged which would impact the quality of surface water or groundwater resources." Therefore, the MND concluded that implementation of the Residential Overlay would not exceed the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) wastewater treatment requirements. The MND determined that, based on the water consumption figures presented in EIR No. 330, residential land uses demand more water than non-residential uses and subsequently generate more wastewater than non-residential uses. The residential densities of Sites A and B are limited to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel density.. This environmental equivalent takes into consideration the limited sewer capacity and was designated and evaluated in EIR Nos: 313 and 330. The MND concluded therefore that the analysis of the Residential Overlay's impacts to the water supply and distribution facilities and wastewater collection and treatment facilities would be consistent with the findings contained in EIR Nos. 313 and 330: The MND determined that Site B would require water supply improvements to serve proposed land uses. The MND noted that several water facility improvements identified in EIR No. 313 as mitigation measures have been installed, but determined that additional improvements would still be required. The MND concluded that the implementation of recommended mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of water facilities to a less than significant level. With regard to wastewater facilities, the MND determined that the increased wastewater flow associated with development of Sites A and B may trigger the need to implement improvements. The MND concluded that the implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of wastewater facilities to a less than significant IeveL The MND determined that development of the project sites with the inclusion of residential uses would create an increased demand for water. The MND concluded, however, that the increased water demand would not exceed the demand increase projected for previously approved land uses. The MND determined that the Gity's projected solid waste generation, including generation from the two. project sites, is less than what was previously assumed and planned for. The MND concluded therefore that no significant impacts would occur provided that the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department continues to expand landfill capacity consistenf with adopted County growth projections and the City continues to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 939. sf-2227396 38 The MND determined that the Anaheim Public Utilities Department's Electrical Division currently provides electrical service to the project sites. Development of the sites with the inclusion of residential uses could create an increase in the demand for electricity. The MND concluded that this increase in demand would be partially offset by the elimination of existing uses which- currently use electricity, and that the implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce any impacts to a level considered less than significant. The MND determined that development of the sites with the inclusion of residential uses could create an .increase in the demand for natural gas. The MND concluded, however, that this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use natural gas. The MND determined that development of the sites with residential uses would create an increase in the demand on the telephone service system. The MND concluded, however, that this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use telephone service. The .MND further concluded that SBC or the current service provider would be able to adequately meet the anticipated demand, and thus, no significant impacts would occur... The MND determined that development of the sites with residential uses would create an increase in the demand on cable television service. The MND concluded, however, that this increase in demand would be offset by the elimination of existing uses which currently use cable television service. The MND further concluded that Adelphia or the current service provider would be able to adequately meet the anticipated demand, and thus, no significant impacts would occur. , The MND concluded that the Residential Overlay would not otherwise result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b as previously adopted includes mitigation measures XVI-1 through XVI-16. Based on these measures, the City Council found that utilities and service systems impacts of the residential overlay would be reduced to below a level of significance.. Mfifl XVI-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented :prior to final building and zoning inspections, and continuing on an oh-going .basis during project operation), the property owner/ developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department plans for review and approval which shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. Among the water conservation measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following:... • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems. • Use of waterway recirculation systems. • Low-flow fittings, fixtures., and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals. • Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves. sf-2227396 39 m Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors. o Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels. m Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water-using appliances. e Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest. e Provide information tc the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation. a Use df water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible Aflflfl XVI-2; Prior to Approval df First Subdivision Map or Issuance of First Grading Permit or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of Anaheim, to the satisfaction of Utilities Department and City Attorney's Office, to guarantee the property owner/develdper's participation in water system improvements necessitated by the project:. The agreement shall contain provisions requiring the property owner/developer to pay or cause to be paid its fair share funding for said improvements and/or construct said improvements, if determined to be necessary by the Utilities Department, with reimbursement by other beneficiaries in accordance with the Utility's Rates., Rules, and Regulations. Costs shall include the payment for consultanUcontractor services for the preliminary engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way acquisition, demolition, construction and inspection, and anyother related expenses. Further, the property owner/developer shall submit an engineering report and phasing plan for review and approval by the Utilities Department setting forth the extent and timing of the water system improvements necessitating by the project for use in implementing the agreement. The property owner/developer shall at all times perform its obligations as set forth in said agreement. Water system improvements identified in the environmental documentation for buildout of the Anaheim Resort, which the property owner/developer may be required to participate in, include: a The existing 8-inch diameter pipe in Clementine Street from Katella Avenue to Disney Way shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. b. The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in Disney Way from Clementine Street to Harbor Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. c. The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in Disney Way from Clementine Street to Harbor Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. d. The 12-inch pipe in Katella Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe. sf-2227396 40 e. The existingl0-inch diameter pipe in Harbor Boulevard from Disney Way to Harbor Boulevard north of Manchester Avenue shall be replaced by a 16-inch diameter pipe. f, An additional water well shall be constructed near the intersection of Clementine Street and Disney Way.. g, The existing 14-inch and 12-inch diameter pipes in West Street from 1<atella Avenue to BaII Road shall be replaced by a 20-inch pipe. (Note: To implement this mitigation. measure, the City has adopted the Anaheim Resort Water Facilities Fee Program (Rule 15E of the Water Rates, Rules and Regulations). Compliance with this Fee Program by the property owner/developer (per Resolution No. 95R-140, effective September 1, 1995) shall satisfy the requirement of this. Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing arrangements).. MM XVI3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department. MM xVl-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer's service: MM XVI-5: Prior to issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs First, The property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: Projects shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when. the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures). MM XVI-6t Prior to AppFoval of a Final Subdivision Map, or Issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:. a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flow, then the property owner's/developer's responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure .Improvement (Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities in 10-and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures fora 100- year storm frequency. b. If the specific developmenUredevelopment increases or redirects the current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer sf-2227396 41 and City Attorney's Office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant - to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10-and 25-year storm' frequencies and to protect properties/structures fora 100-year storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates: (Note: The City has adopted the Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fee Program for the South Cehtral City Area: Compliance with this Fee Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No.5491 and Resolution Nb: 95R-61 dated April 18, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this mitigatidm measure). MM XVI-7: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuahce of a grading orbuilding permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvements (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary sewer deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following: a. ` If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that dischargeand/or (2) does ndt increase flows or changes points of discharge, then the property owner's/developer s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvements (Fee) Program. b. If the development/redeveldpment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge, and/or (2) increase flows or chahges points bf discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required td guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney's office of the impacf prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maihtenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the buildinglstructure, whichever occurs first Additiohally; the property/owner shall sf-2227396 42 participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, oFa combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owners/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall contain, at a minimum, (1) alayout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and (4) construction estimates. The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total buildout of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i:e. each hotel). MM XVI-8: Prior to Issuance of Each Building Permit; to be Implemented Prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspection., The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall betaken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to: a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities. b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal, State and City.regulation for hazardous material disposal d, Participating in the City of Anaheim's "Recycle Anaheim" program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City. In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but not limited to: a. Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins. b. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in:retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. c. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing. d. Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection. e, Prohibiting curbside pick-up. sf-2227396 43 MM XVI-9c Ongoing During Project Operation, The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer. a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and. packaging. b. Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. c. Collectidn of office paper for recycling. d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, '.batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. MM XVI-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy' Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Division in order to review above Title 24 measures to incorporate into the project design including energy efficient designs. MM XVI-11: Prior to final building and zoning inspections., the property owner/developer shall implement energy-saving practices in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following: • Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems controlled by a computerized management system including features such as a variable air volume system, a 100-percent outdoor air economizer cycle, sequential operation of air conditioning equipment in accordance with building demands, isolation of air conditioning to any selected floor or floors. Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy. • Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights. • Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide orhigh-pressure sodium for outdoor lighting and parking lots. MM XVI-12: Prior to issuance of each building permit for any buildings requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and .Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. MM XVI-13: Prior to installation of any transformers, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division, that the transformers are PCB free. sf-2227396 44 MM XVI-14: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are intended to assist in the selection of the most energy-efficient water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies prior to each final building and zoning inspection. MM XVI-15: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the project, to the extent feasible.. MM XVI-16: New developments with exteriors over 75 feet in height shawl submit a baseline study prior to issuance of building permits and a final study within six months after building completion. A study of area television reception shall be undertaken by the property owner/developer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project creates a significant impact on broadcast television .reception at local residences and other existing hotels/restaurants or other businesses, a signal booster or relay system shall be installed by the property owner/developer immediately on the roof of the tallest project building to restore television reception to its original condition. In no event shall heights set forth in Section 18.04.035 of the Anaheim Municipal Code entitled, "Structural Height Limitation- Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area" be exceeded. Proposed Amendment The Proposed Amendment would allow the development ofwholly-residential uses when such uses do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. This impact equivalency requirement also applies to development pursuant to the Residential Overlay. As such, the Proposed Amendment's impacts to utilities and service systems would not be greater than those impacts to utilities and service systems associated with the Residential Overlay. Further, the Proposed Amendment would result in development on the same project sites, within the same area of the City of Anaheim, as the Residential Overlay. The Proposed Amendment would therefore similarly affect wastewater treatment facilities, water supply and distribution facilities, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, electrical service, natural gas service, telephone service, and cable television service. With the implementation of mitigation measures MM XVI-1 through MM XVI-16, and in light of the "impact equivalency" requirement for infrastructure, there would be no change in impacts to utilities and service systems in connection with the Proposed Amendment. Consequently, impacts associated with the Proposed Amendment would be the same as those of the approved Residential Overlay and would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Proposed Amendment. sf-2227396 45 Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist; there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 (d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption and County Administrative fee required) No (Pay fee) *Note: .Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. sf-2227396 46 References Cited Anaheim, City of. 2006 (May). Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Amendment No. 7, Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 2004a (May). City ofAnaheim General Plan (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 2004b (May). City ofAnaheim Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 5920). Anaheim, the Ciry,. Anaheim, City of. 2004c (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 1999 (January). Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 1994 (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum. Anaheim, the City. Anaheim, City of. 1994 (September). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Anaheim, the City. sf-2227396 47 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007--«`« A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00448 PERTAINING TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT (ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY -AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council did adopt the Anaheim General Plan by Resolution No. 69R-644, showing the general description and extent of possible future development within the City; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004-95, adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2006, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2006-206, adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" to add language relating to the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay, which applies to focused areas of the Specific Plan and provides opportunities for the incorporation of residential uses into hotel developments when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full-service hotel; and, to modify the description of the Commercial Recreation land use designation to note that in targeted areas within The Anaheim Resort, residential uses are allowed by conditional use permit when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full-service hotel; and WHEREAS; pursuant to Chapters 18.68 and 18.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, do August 22, 2006, the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 ahd Amendment No. 8 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 {the "Project Actions"); and WHEREAS, the proposed changes relate to the mix and allocation of land uses and zoning standards in order to provide opportunities to develop wholly-residential uses, when such uses are developed on designated properties within the ARR Overlay;. meet the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay; do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject: property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review, and, processed as a Master Planned Development; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 proposes to amend the Land Use :Element of the General Plan to modify"Table LU-4i General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" to add language relating to the ARR Overlay, to allow residential uses do designated properties within the ARR Overlay, when such residential development meets the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay and the proposed development does not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed. bythe property's underlying C-R Districtdensitydesignotion, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent'environmentafveview; and WHEREAS, General Plah Amendment Nd. 2006-00448 also proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify the descriptioh of the Commercial Recreation land use designation to note that in targeted areas within The Anaheim Resort, residential uses are allowed as a Master Plahned Development when such uses are developed on designated properties within the ARR Overlay, and subjedt to the affordability requirements of the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifidatiohs to Table LU-4 and the Commercial Recreation land use designation description are shown in Exhibit "A" attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; and Cr\PC2007- -1- PC2007- WHEREAS, Before the Commission recommends approval of any General Plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan; (b) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; (c) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and (d) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on January 22, 2007, at 2:30 p:m., notice of said public hearing having been dulygiven as required by lawahd in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said General Plan Amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after tlue consideration, inspectidh, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of, and based upon, all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, DOES HEREBY FIND: 1. That the proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan, as the proposed modifications to Table LU-4 and the Commercial Recreation land use designation description are consistent with Goal 2.1 of the Land Use Element of the General. Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City's diverse housing needs, Goal 4.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses, Goal 7.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to address the jobs-housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation facilities and Goal 5.1 of the Economic Development Element to expand housing opportuntties forall economic segments of the community. 2. The propdsed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the impacts to infrastructure would be no greater than those currently associated with the Commercial Recreation land use designation; 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City, in thak the proposed amendment would allow affordable housing to be built in close proximity to a jobs-rich area; and 4. The General Plan Land Use Land Use Map is' unchanged, as the boundaries of the Commercial Recreation Land Use Designation have not been modified. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed Project Actions, considered the environmental documentation and evidence presented, and by motion did find and determine and recommend that the City Council find and determine that the Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Addendum prepared to further ahalyze this land use, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, that the Project Actions will not create additional impacts and do not otherwise trigger the factors requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment; determine that the Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration with Addendum and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program tJd. 0085b are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Project Actions, including the General Plan Amendment, and satisfy all bf the requirements of CEQA. _2_ PC2007- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 pertaining to Table LU-4 and the Commercial Recreation land use designation '° description to reflect modifications to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, as set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, to provide the opportunity to develop wholly-residential uses on designated properties within the ARR Overlay, when such development meets the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay; does not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review; and, is processed as a Master Planned Development. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.6p, "Procedures" 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, Eleahdr 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 January 22, 2007, 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 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2007 Exhibit A NOTE: Removed words are shown with stfikeeat and new wards are shown in bold. ° -- TABLE LU-4: GENERAL PLAN DENSITY PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CITY Location General Plan Land Use Desi nations Permitted Dehsit The Mountain Park Low Medium Hillside Density 465 Area Residential (Up to 6 du/ac) 2,015 Low Medium Density Residential (Up to 2,500 dwelling units) (Up to 16 du/ac) Area "A" (Parcel Map Low-Medium Density Residential Up to 140 dwelling units 94-205) The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Commercial Recreation See Note No. 1 on next page. SP92-1 Area The Anaheim Resort® Specific Commercial Recreation See Note No. 2 on next page.: Plan SP92-2 Area Hotel Circle Specific Commercial Recreation The Hotel Circle Specific Plan allows for a Plan (SP93-1) Area master planned hotel project including up to 969 hotel rooms and integrated guest oriented amenities including full-service restaurants, conferenceYoom/banquet facilities, pool and spa areas, tour bus/shuttle facilities, and pedestrian promenades and plaza areas with comprehensive landscaping.. The Platinum Mixed-Use Up to 9,500 dwelling units at densities up to Triangle Area 100 dwelling units per acre; up to 3,265,000 s.f. of office development at maximum FAR of 2.00; and, up to 2,254,400 s.f. of commercial development at a maximum FAR of 0.40. Office High and Office Low Up to 1,735,000 s.f. of office development at a maximum FAR of 2.0 for properties designated Office-High and a maximum FAR of 0.50 for properties designated Office-Low. The Stonegate Low Density Residential Up to 35 dwelling units Development Area -4- PC2007- ___ o e o, a isneyland Resort Specific Plan provides for the development of an approximate 489.7 acre internatiohal multi-day vacation designation resort including ongoing modifications to the Disneyland theme park, the development of a new theme park, additional hotels and entertainment areas, administrative office Facilities, new public and private parking facilities, and an ihtemal transportation system, This development is within five planning Districts (Theme Park, Hotel,.- Parking, Future Expansion and Distdc[ A) and a C-R Overlay, which allows development within the Overlay to either be consistent with the underlying Resort District or subject to the same land uses as in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan also identifies maximum development density desighations for hotel/motel development iri the Hotel District (up to 5,600 hotel rooms for the entire District with up to 1,000 hotel rooms transferable to the Theme Park District), in District A (the maximum number of units permitted would be 75 hotel/motel rooms per gross acre or 75 hotel/motel rooms per parcel existing on June 29, 1993, whichever is greater) and the C-R Overlay (the maximum number of units permitted on a parcel would be the following: 1) for parcels designated Low Density- up to 50 hotel rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms, whichever is greater; and 2) for parcels designated Medium Density- up to 75 hotel rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms, whichever is greater; provided that for those parcels tfiafare developed with hotel/motel rooms which exceeded the maximum density designation, the number of rooms existing on the date of adoption of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Ordinance may be rebuilt or modified at their existing density.) It should be noted that accessory uses may be developed as well as other visitor-serving commercial/retail and restaurant uses along with these hotel/motel uses. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan also provides for the development of the Anaheim GardenWalk projectpursuant to the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay at the following density and subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, as amended, to permit the following: up to 569,750 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses, including movie theaters; 1,628 hotel rooms/suites (including up to 500 vacation ownership units) and 278,817 square feet of hotel accessory uses; a transportation center, and 4,800 parking spaces. The Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay encompasses District A and the portion of the Parking District (East Parking Area)/CR Overlay south of Disney Way. Note No. 2. The Anaheim Resort Speafic Plan provides for the development of approximately 582 acres within the C-R (Commercial Recreation) District which allows for hotels, motels, convention and conference facilities, as well as restaurants, retail shops and entertainment facilities; the PR (Public Recreation) District which encompasses the Anaheim Convention Center and associated parking facilities and provides for the orderly use of City-owned property as well as the existing Anaheim Hilton Hotel; and, the Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay which encompasses existing mobile home parks within the C-R District and provides development standards for mobile home parks and regulations and procedures to mitigate relocation concerns and adverse effects of displacement upon mobile home owners when a park is converted to another land use; and, the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay, which applies to focused areas of the Specific Plan and provides for the incorporation of (i) residential uses into hotel developments when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full-service hotel or (ii)wholly-residential uses on designated properties that meet the affordability requirements of the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan also iden8fies maximum development density designations in the C-R District. These designa8ons are based upon hotel/motel development and allow up to 20% of each hotel/motel project gross square footage, excluding parking facilities, to be developed with integrated (i.e., included within the main hoteVmotel complex) accessory uses. These accessory uses will reduce the otherwise maximum permitted hotel/motel density at the rate of one hotel/motel room per six hundred (600) gross square feet of accessory use. For properties proposed to be developed with permitted and conditionally permitted uses other than hotels/motels with accessory uses, the traffic generation characteristics of said uses shall not exceed those associated with the otherwise permitted hotel/motel (including accessory uses) density as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to Final Site Plan review and approval. The density designations are as follows: "Low Density," which has a maximum density of up to 50 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per lot or parcel, whichever is greater; "Low-Medium Density," up to 75 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per lot or parcel, whichever is greater, "Medium Density.," up to 100 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms per lot or parcel, whichever is greater; and, "Convention Center (CC) Medium Density," up to 125 rooms per gross acre with trip generation characteristics mitigated to the equivalent of 10D rooms per gross acre, or 75 rooms per lot or parcel, whichever is greater. For those parcels that are developed with hotel/motel rooms which exceed the maximum density designation, the number of rooms existing on the date of adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Ordinance may be rebuilt or modified at their existing density. For projects that are developed in accordance with the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay, (i) the maximum number of dwelling units allowed shall be less than the number of hotel rooms proposed and such projects shall not create infrastructure impacts greater than the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as permitted by the property's underlying C-R District density designation unless otherwise mitigated through subsequent environmental analysis, or (ii) if the residential uses are on designated properties, properties shall meet the affordability requirements of Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay and shall not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. -5- PC2007- Commercial Recreation Desionation Description The Commercial Recreation land use designation applies to The Anaheim Resort. The designation-is intended to provide for tourist and entertainment related industries, such as theme parks, hotels, tourist oriented retail, movie theaters, and other visitor-serving facilities. The Commercial-Recreation designation is implemented by various Specific Plan Zones in The Anaheim Resort, which further define the maximum development intensities within this area. In addition, in targeted areas within The Anaheim Resort, residential uses are (i) allowed by conditional use permit when such uses ere fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full-service hotel, or (ii) allowed as a Master Planned Development when such uses are developed on designated properties subject to the affordability requirements of the Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay. T#~e-Geaataersial _g_ PC2007- {nRa~T~ RESOLUTION NO. PC2007--"` A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-2, AMENDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.116 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Cduncil of the City of Anaheim adopted the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Nd. 92-Z on September 27, 1994, to provide a long range, comprehensive plan for future development of approximately 549-:acres within the Anaheim Resort. The Specific Plan includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines and a public facilities plan, and permits the development of hotel/motel, convention, retail and other visitor-serving uses; and WHEREAS, in connection witFi the adoption of Specific Plan No. 92-2, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 313, with a Statement of Findings and Facts and a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085; .and WHEREAS, on June 3, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5599 amending Ordinance No. 5454 relating to the Anaheim Resdrt Specific Plan No. 92-2, Amendment No. 1, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by reclassifying and incorporating a 4.67-acre parcel into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, AmendmentNo. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; a request to amend the zoning and development standards to add "Coffee'House" as a conditionally permitted accessory use in conjunctioh with an automobile service station, was denied by the Plahning Commission oh October 12, 1998 and the petition was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant at the January 26, 1999 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5685 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Adjustment Nd. 1 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning andbevelopment Standards set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to structural setbacks and yard requirements to reflect the local street status of Canvention Way; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5964 amending Ordinance Nos. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim' Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by reclassifying and incorporating a 0.73-acre parcel into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS; on September 21, 1999, the` City Council' adopted Ordinance No. 5703 relating to Adjustment No. 21o the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS; on May 1, 2001, the City Council adopted. Ordinance No. 5769 relating to Adjustment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standards set forth. in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to temporary parking requirements; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5910 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Adjustment No. 4 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to office uses in a legal non-conforming building; and Cr\PC2007- i PC2007- WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5922 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 5 (which also incorporates Amendment No. 4) to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific plan by reclassifying and iricorporating 27-acres into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2005 the City Couhcil adopted Ordinance No. 5954 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 6 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92- 2, which amendment modified the Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to the establishment of mini-market/convenience markets as accessory uses in conjunction with a relocated service station and prohibition of tow truck operations in conjunction with service station facilities; and. WHEREAS, on September 12, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6036 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92- 2, which amendment modified the Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to the establishment of an ARR (Anaheim Resort Residential) Overlay to provide the opportunity to develop residential units in conjunction with high-quality, luxury hotels within targeted areas; and ' WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 18.68 and 18.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on August 22, 2006 the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (the "Project Actions"); and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No. Seto the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 relates to modifications to the Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to the ARR Overlay tb provide the opportunity to develop residential units, when. such uses are developed on designated properties within the ARR Overlay; meet the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay; do not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review;. and, processed as a Master Planned Development; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 22, 2007, at 2:30 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, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due cohsideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the properties proposed to be designated for wholly-residential uses by the proposed amendment have unique site characteristics, such as topography, location or surroundings, that are enhanced by special land use and development standards, in that the subject properties are located at the periphery of The Anaheim Resort, adjacent to other residential uses, and are currently developed with residential uses.. 2. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan; and with the purposes, standards and land use guidelines therein, in that the proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 2.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City's diverse housing needs, Goal 4.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses, Goal 7.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to address the jobs- housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation facilities and Goal 5.1 of the Economic Development Element to expand housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; z 3. That the specific plan results in development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood, in that development of wholly-residential uses will be required to be processed as a Master Planned Development, which includes the reclassification of the project to its own Specific Plan Zone consistent with the goals and purpose identified in the City pf Anaheim General Plan for the Commercial Recreation land use designation as well as the goals and objectives of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan; 4. That the specific plan contributes to a balance of land uses throughout the City in that property owners may develop either hotel and visitor serving uses consistent with the current Anaheim Resort Specific Plan or wholly-residential uses pursuant to the requirements of the proposed amendment; and 5. That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities, in that the proposed amendment continues to allow property owners to develop their properties with hotels and other visitor-serving uses, as currently allowed by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and provides an opportunity to develop wholly-residential development; both types of development are required to comply with the same structural height, landscaping and setbacks required by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan; in addition, infrastructure impacts related to wholly-residential development are not permitted to be any greater than the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards are identified in the attached draft ordinance and incorporated herein. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed Project Actions, considered the environmental documentation and evidence presented, and by motion did find and determine and recommend that the City Council find and determine that the Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the addendum.prepared to further analyze this land use, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, that the Project Actions will not create additional impacts and do not otherwise trigger the factors requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment; determine that the Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration with addendum and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Project Actions, including Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 to revise the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards as set forth in Attachment A to this Resolution, which attachment is hereby incorporated herein as though set forth in full. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2007. 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 amappeal. 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 January 22, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNfSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION a ~~~FT~ Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF - - - ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO: 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5453, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, AND AMENDING: ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT_STANDARDS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.116 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on September 27, 1994, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Ordinance No. 5454 amending the zoning map to reclassify certain real property described therein into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 zone subject to certain conditions as specified therein, and Ordinance No. 5453 relating to establishment of Zoning and Development Standards for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 by the addition of Chapter 18.48 to said Code; and WHEREAS; on Tune 3, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5599 .amending Ordinance No. 5454 relating to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; Amendment No. 1, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries of the. Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by reclassifying and incorporating a 4.67-acre parcel into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, Amendment. No. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, a request to amend the zoning and development standards to add "Coffee House" as a conditionally permitted accessory use in conjunction with an automobile service station, was denied by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1998 and the petition was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant at the January 26, 1999 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5685 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Adjustment No. 1 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim: Municipal Code relating to structural setbacks and yazd requirements to reflect the local street status of Convention Way; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5964 amending Ordinance Nos. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by reclassifying and incorporating a 0.73-acre pazcel into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, om September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5703 relating to Adjustment No. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standazds set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area; .and Cr\PC2007- s PC2007- WHEREAS, on May 1, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5769 relating to Adjustment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and Development Standards set. forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim. Municipal Code relating to temporary pazking requirements; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5910 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Adjustment No. 4 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which adjustment amended the Zoning and_Development Standards set forth in Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to office uses in a legal non-conforming building; and WHEREAS, oh June 8, 2004 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5922 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 5 (which also incorporates Amendment No. 4) to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment revised the legal description and boundaries. of the Anaheim Resort Specific plan by reclassifying and incorporating 27-acres into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2005 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5954 amending Ordinance No. 5453 relating to Amendment No. 6 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment modified the Zoning and Development Standazds pertaining to the establishment of mini-mazkeUconvenience markets as accessory uses in conjunction with a relocated service station and prohibition of tow truck operations in conjunction with service station facilities; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6036 amending Ordinance No. 5453. relating to .Amendment No: 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, which amendment modified the Zoning and Development Standazds pertaining to the establishment of an ARR (Anaheim Resort Residential) Overlay to provide the opportunity to develop residential units in conjunction with high-quality, luxury hotels within targeted areas; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 18.68 and 18.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on August 22, 2006 the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No. 8 relates to modifications to the Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay Zone to provide the ability to develop residential units on designated properties within the ARR Overlay when such development meets the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay; does not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation., unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review; and, is processed as a Master Planned Development; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2007, the Anaheim City Planning Commission considered the proposed Amendment No. 8 and recommended to the City Council that it adopt an ordinance incorporating said proposed amendment; and fi a NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM .DOES ORDAIN THAT ORDINANCE NO. 5453 BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY, AMENDED TO REVISE THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN CHAPTER 18.116 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIFAL CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section .125 of Chapter 18.116 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to Lead as follows: 18.116.125 ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL (ARR) OVERLAY .010 Purpose. The purpose of the ARR Overlay is to provide the opportunity to develop residential units (i) in conjunction with high-quality, luxury hotels (Hotel Residences).; or (ii) on properties designated for. Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very Low and Low-Income Families (Affordable Housing). .020 Approval -Hotel Residences. Projects that are developed according to the standards of the ARR Overlay as Hotel Residences require approval of a final site plan and a conditional use permit as provided for in Section 18.116.040 and may require a development agreement as determined by the Planning Director and processed according to the procedures set forth in Resolution No. 82R-565 (Procedures Resolution) adopted by the City of Anaheim pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement statute. .025 Approval -Affordable Housing. Projects that are developed according to the standards of the ARR Overlay as Affordable Housing shall be a permitted use subject to and processed as a Master Planned Development under subsection 18.116.040.060 (Master Planned Developments) and shall not require a conditional use permit. .030 Location. The residential overlay boundaries are identified on Attachment A to Ordinance 6036 adopted on September 12, 2006 (Amendment No: 7 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2) and include those azeas within the C-R District located east of Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and those azeas within the C-R District located south of Wilken Way. .040 Option to Use Underlying Zone. The provisions of this section shall not apply to parcels that have been or are proposed to be developed entirely pursuant to the underlying C-R District, provided that all requirements of the underlying District are met by the project except as specifically approved otherwise by variance or other official action by the City. .050 Residential Zone. The ARR Overlay shall not be considered a residential zone, where such designation requires properties that develop .adjacent to residential zones to meet additional setback and height restrictions. .060 Uses. Projects developed pursuant to the ARR Overlay may include any of the uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying C-R District and shall include either: 7 .0601 Hotel Residences. Development shall include a minimum three hundred (300) room full-service hotel that complies with Califomia Civil Code Section 1940(b)(2) and may include T~ ~aa:«~~~ ~- ~°~«° •~°•~ ~~°'••a° residential uses as accessory to the hotel. .0602 Affordable Housing. Residential development shall meet the- following requirements: .Ol Development shall be located on a site designated for Affordable Housing Opportunities for Very Low and Low-Income Families, as shown on Attachment A to Ordinance No. adopted on , 2007 (Amendment No. 8). .02 Fifteen percent (IS%) of the units shall be affordable multi- family rental units for very low and low-income households as defined below. (a) Twenty percent (20%) of the affordable rental units shall have rents that are affordable to very low income families whose incomes are at 50% or less of the annually-published HUD area median income. (b) Eighty percent (80%) of the affordable rental units shall have rents that are affordable to low income families whose incomes are at 60% or less of the of the annually-published HUD area median income. ` (c) The above affordability requirements shall be met regardless of the availability of any subsidies. The term "subsidy" does not include (a) the obtaining of tax credits pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, for any affordable housing project, (b) the provision of bond financing pursuant to California or federal law, or (c) any monies made available from any source, whether governmental or private, so long as such monies do not require the expenditure of City foods or Redevelopment Agency monies. ,03 Development shall not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hoteUmoteCdensity, as allowed by the underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are'duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review. .04 The maximum number of dwelling units allowed for residential development shall be equal to the maximum number of hotel rooms allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation. :070 Development Standards: A11 development: standards established for the C-R District shall be applicable to the ARR Overlay. ",,a:«:,..,.., e e~«- F n.,...~. Affordable Housing development proposals shall meet the requirements of a Master Planned Development under subsection 18.116.040.060 (Master Planned Developments). Hotel Residences shall meet the following requirements: .0701 New Construction. The Residential Overlay shall apply to new construction only and not to projects that are renovations or remode]s. The conversion of existing hotels rooms to dwelling units is prohibited. .0702 Integration of Uses. All residential units shall be physically integrated into a hotel development as defined in Section 18.116.095.060. .0703 Maximum Number of Residential Units: The project's total number of residential units shall not exceed the proposed development's total number of hotel rooms. s .0704 Location of Residential Units. Adjacent to the public right-of--way, residential units shall be located at least two floors or twenty-five (25) feet above ground-level. .0705 Infrastructure and Service Impacts. The proposed development shall not result in infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the subject property's permitted hotel/motel density, as allowed by the property's underlying C-R District density designation, unless such impacts are duly analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review, Such impacts shall be determined through a sewer and traffic impact analysis to be submitted to the City Engineer. Additional infrastructure studies may be required as determined by the Planning Director. .0706 Parking. Due to variations in parking demand and the needs of each project, vehicle parking requirements, the demand for drop-off and pick-up locations and the design of the parking areas, including ingress and egress, shall be determined as part of the final site plan review based upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, as approved by the City of Anaheim. The parking demand study shall be prepazed at the property owner/developer's expense and provided as part of the final site plan application. Parking spaces specifically designated for non-residential and residential uses shall be marked by the use of posting, pavement mazkings, and/or physical separation. Pazking design shall incorporate sepazate entrances and exits or a designated lane for residents. .0707 Floor Area. The minimum floor area for residential units is shown in Table 116-J (Minimum Floor Area: Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay Zone). For purposes of this section, a "bedroom" is a private habitable room planned or used for sleeping, separated from other rooms by a door or a similaz partition. Further, all rooms (other than a living room, family room, dining room, bathroom, hall, lobby, closet, or pantry) having seventy (70) squaze Feet or more of floor azea, or less than fifty percent (50%) of the total length of any wall open to an adjacent room or hallway, shall be considered a "bedroom." Table 20-A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL (ARR) OVERLAY ZONE Minimum Floor Area Studio units: 600 squaze feet. The number of studio units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of residential units One-bedroom 700 square feet units: Two-bedroom 825 squaze feet units: Three-bedroom 1,000 square feet units: More than three- 1,000 squaze feet plus 200 squaze feet for each bedroom bedroom units: over three .0708 Minimum Landscape and Recreational-Leisure Areas.. In addition to the minimum landscape and open space required by Section 18.116.070.120.1207, recreational- 9 leisure area shall be provided equal to a minimum often (10) percent of the total area of the site. This recreational-leisure area maybe provided in private areas, common areas, or a combination of both. .Ol Common Recreational-Leisure Areas. All common recreational- leisure areas shall be conveniently located and readily accessible from all residential units located on the building site and shall be integrated with and contiguous to other common areas on the building site. The common recreational-leisure areas shall not include any required setback areas, any driveways or parking azeas, trash pickup or storage areas or utility areas. Areas counted toward meeting this requirement may be located inside or outside the building, .subject to the approval of the Planning Director. .02 Private Recreational-Leisure Areas. In order for private patios .and balconies to count toward the Recreational-Leisure Area requirement, they shall not be less than thirty (35) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of five (5) feet. .0709 Loading Areas. Residential uses shall have one (1) off-street loading space or moving plaza for every one hundred and fifty (150) units. Loading spaces or moving plazas shall be located near entries and/or elevators and shall be incorporated into the design of vehicular access .areas. Decorative paving, removable bollazds and potted plants. are permitted and encouraged to enhance loading spaces or moving plazas. .0710 Private Storage Facilities. General storage cabinets with a minimum size of one hundred (100) cubic feet capacity shall be required for each residential unit. Provision of said storage areas shall be in addition to the minimum floor azea of the unit. Storage areas may be located inside the dwelling unit, adjacent to the dwelling units balcony or patio, in close proximity to the dwelling unit, or in close proximity to an elevator. .0711 Security. Residential units shall be designed to ensure the security of residents through the provision of secured access points/lobbies, entrances and exits that aze separate from the non-residential uses and aze directly accessible to residential parking areas. .0712 Restriction on Activities: Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited, so that residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries or late night activity. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. .0713 Vibrations and Odors. No use, activity or process shall produce continual vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible without instruments by the average person at the property lines of the site or within the interior of residential units or recreational-leisure azeas on the site. .0714 Lighting. Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall not adversely impact residential uses, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash, or oscillate. .0715 Windows. Residential windows shall not directly face loading areas .and docks. To the extent windows of residential units face each other or hotel rooms, the windows shall be designed and/or oriented to maximize privacy. io SECTION 3. 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. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council this it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 5. SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal or amendment 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 thereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any tax, license or penalty or of the penal provisions applicable to any violations thereof. The provisions of the ordinance, insofar as they are 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. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of , 2007, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of 2007, by the following roil call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN; CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: By MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTTACHMENT A PROPERTIES DESIGNATED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ~ ~~ m ~ ~ _ ~,~ `r9 Z ~. ~~9 _-_.. ____ -9 `` ti KATELLAAVE~~9 ;. ' ^~ `~` k f`f~~ ~ ,,~~-`~ ~ ~,'~s,~ ~-~'~ i~~~~~~.$"' ~~~~s III -, .~. .I ~... -_. ~~I -_ .._ _ (. Key to Features - Subject Propertes L _ J The Anaheim ResortT"' Boundary li APN: 137-321-14. 85 PARCEL Al THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 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 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, AND THAT PORTION OF LOTS 15 AND 23 OF TRACT NO. 498, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ~z BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 16 OF SAID TRACT NO. 498, DISTANT NORTH 89° 55' 31" WEST 84.38 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEROF; THENCE SOUTH 42° 00' 00" EAST 127.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 48° 00' 00" EAST 139.61 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND'DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED APRIL 9, 1952 AS DOCUMENT NO.25258, IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 42° 00' 00" EAST 39..31 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADNS OF 9970.p0 FEET;' THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 07' 08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 20.69 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JOHN C. ADAMS, ET AL:, RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1959 INBOOK 4830, PAGE 104 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE .SOUTH 49° 09' 45" WEST 169.11 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF JOHN C. ADAMS TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH O1 ° 18' 30" WEST TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE NORTH 89° 55' 31" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLYZINE OF SAID LOTS 15 AND 23 TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE'SHOWN IN THE DEED TO CHARLES B. FRANK, ET AL., RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1966 IN BOOK 7853, PAGE 515 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS "SOUTH 47° 55' S 1" WEST 33.81 FEET"; THENCE NORTH 47° 55' S 1" EAST 33.81 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN PARCEL N0.200465-i OF THE DEED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970090106 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 137-321-40 PARCEL A2 LOT 16 OF TRACT NO. 498, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 200 FEET OF LOT 16 OF TRACT NO.498, BERGER HALF-ACRES, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.. APN: 137-321-37 PARCEL B 1 LOT 15 OF TRACT NO. 498, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THE EAST 200.00 FEET THEREOF. is APN: 137-321-62 PARCEL B2 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 15 AND 16 OF TRACT NO. 498, AS SHOWN ON A MAP - RECORDED INBOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, DISTANT NORTH 89° 59' 40" WEST 84.38 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89° 59' 40" WEST 115.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1° 10' 15" EAST 117.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, SOUTH 89° 59' 40" EAST 115.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1° 19' 15" WEST 117.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 137-321-61 PARCEL B3 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 15 AND 16 OF TRACT NO 498, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A FOINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 16, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89° 59' 40" WEST 84.38 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTCORNER OF SAID LOT 16; THENCE SOUTH 42° 04' 09" EAST 127.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 55' S 1" WEST 33.81 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE NORTH 89° 59' 40" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 15 A DISTANCE OF 57.37 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 15 AND 16 AND PASSES THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1 ° 19' 15" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 117.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 137-321-94 PARCEL C PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADNSTMENT "LLA-0000595", RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT 2005000757756, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS A1, B1, B2, B3, AND C, THE MOBILE HOME(S) LOCATED THEREON. PARCEL C1 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, RANCHO SAN is JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF TRACT NO. 498, PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0000595 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-000757756. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF KATELLA AVENUE, 72 FEET WIDE LYING BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT NO.498 AND THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N0.000595 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO.2005-00757756. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF HASTER STREET, 45 FEET WIDE AND VARIABLE WIDTH, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0000595 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-000757756. ALSO EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS OF LAND DESCRIBED AS EXHIBITS "A-1", "A-2", "A-3" AND "A-4" pF THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMANTION IN CASE NO. 784656 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, FILED MARCH 30, 1999 AND RECORDED MARCH 7, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT N0.1999-0254025. APN: 137-321-95 PARCEL D THAT PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED AS PARCEL NO.200321-1 (ALSO DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 48, PAGE 10 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY), AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 10, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960175445 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF COURSES NUMBERED (1) AND (2) OF THE LINE DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980071396 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 137-321-52 LOTS 13 AND 14 OF TRACT NO. 498, BERGER HALF-ACRES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. is EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOT 14 ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY 129.17 FEET OF SAID LOT 14, LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 50:00 FEET OF SAID LOT 14. APN: 137-321-48 THE SOUTH 50.00 FEET OF LOT 14 OF TRACT NO.498, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 129 FEET 2 INCHES 16 ATTAC~IMENT D City Council Minutes August 22, 2006 Agenda Item No. 44 Attachment D is provided to Planning Commission only. This document is on file in the Planning Department and is available for public review during normal business hours. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED AUGUST 8, 2006 MEETING and REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST.22, 2006 The August 8, 2006 regular adjourned City Council meeting was called to order on August 22, 2006 at 2:35 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Council Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez and Harry Sidhu. Mayor Pringle arrived during the workshop presentation. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Tom Wood, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Sheryl) Schroeder. A copy of the agenda for the August 22nd meeting was posted on August 18, 2006 at the City Hall exterior bulletin board. VERBATIM MINUTES -AUGUST 22, 2006, AGENDA ITEM N0.44 44. MITIGATED fVEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00442 (SPN NO. 2006-00036) OWNER: City of Anaheim, 200 Sduth Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION:' The Anaheim Resortencompasses approximately 1,078 acres within the City of Anaheim and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between the Disneyland Drive off ramp and Chapman Avenue, with a portion located north of the I-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange. The Commercial Recreation General Plan land use designation includes all of the properties within The Anaheim Resort. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is located within The Anaheim Resort and encompasses approximately 580 acres. The proposed Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay involves two sites within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. Site A encompasses approximately 43.7 acres east of Anaheim Boulevard and Raster Street in the vicinity of Katella Avehue. Site B encompasses approximately 15.6 acres south of W ilken Way and easf of Harbor Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 -City initiated request td amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to amend Table LU-4 and the description for the Commercial Recreation land use designation to allow residential uses in conjunction with full-service hotels within two targeted areas of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area.. Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SPN No. 2006- 00036) -City initiated request to amend the Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim MunicipaLCode) for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2'" to establish an overlay (Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay) and standards for the development of residential uses in conjunction with full-service hotels within two targeted areas of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. `Advertised to include "in its entirety to provide consistency with Title 18 (Zoning Code), and provide minor modficatiohs and clarifications." ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Mitigated Negative Declaration -Recommended City Council approval. General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 -Recommended adoption of Exhibit "A" to City Council Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SPN NO. 2006-00036) -Recommended City Council approval, including modifications to the recommended draft ordinance; Vote: 7-0. MOTFON: C/H Find and determine that the Ahaheim Resort Residential Overlay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the following proposed amendments. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 0085b, FOR AMENDMENT NO: 7 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (THE ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) AND DETERMINING THEIR ADEQUACY TO SERVE AS THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS. RESOLUTION NO. 200ti-206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00442, PERTAINING TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT. ORDINANCE NO: 6036. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5453, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, AND AMENDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.116 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director: On June 12~h, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the General Plan and to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to provide the framework to allow a unique type of housing in the Anaheim Resort. This concept integrates condominiums occupied by full time residents in a luxury hotel. These residents would have access to all the services and amenities of afull-service hotel such as room service, - housekeeping, recreational facilities and restaurants. Some examples of this type of development include the W Dallas Victory Hotel and residences, the. Tower Residences at the Ritz Carlton Sarasota and the Intercontinental Boston. The proposed amendments are before you tonight because housing is not currently permitted within the Anaheim Resort by either the General Plan or the areas specific plans. The entire Anaheim Resort, indicated by the red boundary line on the map, is designated by the General Plan for Commercial/Recreation land uses. This designation is intended to provide for tourists and entertainment related businesses such as theme parks, hotels, tourist oriented retail stores, movie theaters and other visitor serving uses. The Anaheim Resort is comprised of three different specific plans that provide zoning and the design framework for the area. The proposed residential overlay only applies to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, which is shown here in blue. City staff had identified. two areas which are indicated in orange that are suitable for this type of development due to a variety of factors. These include their location along the periphery of the resort and their development potential. By focusing this type of development along the periphery, properties located closer to the Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Convention Center remain preserved for hotels and other visitor::. serving uses. One of the target areas shown on the left is on the east side of Harbor. Boulevard between Wilken Way and Chapman Avenue. This 16-acre area is located immediately north and east of the Garden Grove city limits and currently occupied by a variety of retail uses, including a vacant Toys'R Usbuilding. The other location. depicted on the right side of the screen is on the north .and south sides of Katella Avenue east of Anaheim Boulevard and Haster Street. This 44-acre site is occupied by a variety of land uses, including The Boogie, two mobile home parks, three hotels and a mix of retail uses. The overlay proposed for these two areas would give property owners an additional opportunity to develop this new type of housing in conjunction with the full service hotel or alternatively, they can still expand or redevelop their existing land uses in accordance with the current provisions of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The overlay provides development criteria to insure that the condominium units. blend seamlessly with the area's visitor serving uses. For instance, the proposed residential units must be physically integrated into a new full service hotel that features a minimum of 300 rooms. The residential component cannot comprise more than 50 percent of a proposed project. For example, only 300 residential units would be permitted in conjunction with a 300 room hotel. Residential uses can not be located on the ground flooralong any public right of way in order to preserve the resort ambiance for our visitors. Development must meet all of the existing design criteria of the , Anaheim Resort Specific Plan pertaining to landscaping, height, setbacks, signs and utility screening. Projects would require approval of a conditional use permit and may require a development agreement as well. All new development within the residential overlay would need to comply with the environmental equivalency of the density of hotel rooms permitted by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The existing permitted hotel densities which are shown here for the two targeted areas are directly related to the infrastructure that has been built or planned for the area, including sewers and:. roadways. On a site designated medium density, for example, the number of hotel and condominium units combined could not exceed 100 units per acre, but again it would be- - subject to confirmation that the proposal doesn't exceed the environmental equivalency of the hotel development already planned. - Environmental documentation has been prepared for the proposed amendments which concludes that the proposed overlay would not create an environmental impact beyond that which was already analyzed for the intensity of development currently permitted by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. This documentation was circulated for not one, but two 30-day publicreview periods, the last which ended on August 17"'. Seventeen comment letters were received, but none of them questioned the adequacy of the environmental review. Six of the letters we received were from a law firm representing SunCal Companies. A representative of SunCal Companies also provided testimony at the Planning Commission hearing. As indicated in the letters and the testimony, SunCal Companies has been contemplating the development of about 1,500 residential units on the property generally indicated by the arrow on the screen. This type of development is not consistent with the type of housing associated with the proposed overlay and it also reflects a departure from the goals of the resort area.. Since the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan currently prohibits residential development, SunCal Companies would need to follow the same entitlement process to ensure their development whether or not the proposed overlay is applied to their property. Amendments to the Specific Plan and the General Plan must be approved, Correspondence received from the law firm also refers to acity-initiated market analysis which was completed in July, 2005. I think it's important to note that this market analysis was not been prepared in conjunction with the proposed residential overlay. The study, was initiated as part of the our overall efforts to evaluate the on-going feasibility of resort uses. The intent of the study was to determine the market for resort uses and land use strategies that might accelerate resort development, not to justify removing parcels from the resort or to introduce non-resort related land uses. SunCal's representatives maintained that a draft of the study noted that SunCal's site was suitable for residential development. That may be the case, but the City is never obligated to amend our general plan and zoning to allow what may be considered the highest and best use of the site. If that were the case, we probably would have rezoned almost of the City to allow for residential development during the recent housing boom. Staft is not planning to initiate any amendments to the specific plan or the general plan that would remove properties from the resort but nevertheless, we have received one , application to do so at the corner of Harbor and Ball, and I think most of you are familiar with that one. Where the applicant is proposing a mixed use development and the applicant is proposing to create their own specific plan for that site. The same law firm submitted an additional letter representing Intercontinental Hotels Group which manages the property indicated by the arrow on this slide, which is presently developed with a Holiday Inn Hotel and a Staybridge Suites Hotel. The letter expresses concerns regarding the. overlay being applied to this property since the hotels on this site were recently built and implementation of the overlay by the property owner would require demolition of these 4 hotels. The proposed boundaries for the overlay were intended to include areas where this new type of development could be pursued while maintaining the integrity of the resort. The boundaries were developed with respect to the age or condition of existing structures in the overlay and in no way limits the ability to maintain existing uses.. - However, we can easily adjust the boundaries of the overlay zone if these property. owners wished to be excluded.. Over the years the Anaheim Resort has evolved into a world class visitor-serving.... , destination insuring that this regionally important area continues to reinvent itself as an effort to attract new visitors, businesses and investments. This is a key to insuring that the area maintains its edge in the highly competitive visitorand convention market place. The proposed amendments would, in our opinion, further the goals of the Anaheim resort and could accelerate the attraction and construction of high end hotels.. and a type of specialized housing. that would be unique and complementary to this area. For these reasons, we recommend that you approve the actions before you tonight and hopefully all of us can answer in questions that you may have. Mayor Pringle: Very good. One question that i have is the Resort area is financed, the City of Anaheim long before any of us were on this council, took, borrowed money in a municipal borrowing, I hear one of the largest in US history, to expand the Convention.. Center and provide public improvements within the the Referencing the City's borrowing. which had occurred some years ago to expand the convention center and provide public. improvements in the resort area planned. I'm told that that financing is paid for by the revenues from bed tax, two Dents, three cents ofthe 15 cents that are collected. And- yet, the original financing was based upon the growth of the resort area. Is that right, Mr. Wood, I know. you worked on that, so if you help me along here. $o, in fact, the. growth was not only adding new hotel rooms but was also based upon increasing the. rates paid at those. hotel sites. Is that correct? Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager: That's correct. Mayor Pringle: I know at the time, around '96 or'97, the City of Anaheim was. concerned that a neighboring city, Garden Grove, was building a whole bunch of hotels to basically capture many of the benefits that the City of Anaheim saw including the benefit of the expansion of Disneyland into the second park, the California Adventure. 5o the City undertook,. if I'm not mistaken, the first time ever, subsidizing the development of hotel rooms. Is that correct? Tom Wood: Yes Mayor Pringle: In a way of providing funding through the bed tax, the Doubletree that. is just now being completed at the corner of Orangewood and Harbor, the Marriott. suites, other potential proposals, certainly the GardenWalk properties. All of those were the City's concern to make sure vve had enough, the proper number of hotel beds to pay the debt. And part of that was based upon getting those number of hotel beds up. Right? Tom Wood: That's correct. Mayor Pringle: So, we actually engaged in a degree'of underwriting of the development of hotels. And today, we are seeing the final realization of that as the hotel market was pretty limited for quite a while. Is that correct? Tom Wood: Correct ahd we have been very successful in introducing additional hotel' products and rates have gone up and the bond coverage ratios have worked out very acceptably. Mayor Pringle: But I guess that's kind of, a lot of people have said what is the whole issue about and I think this whole issue is simply responding to that issue and that is financing the resort improvements are based upon money from the bed tax, not from the general fund or from the guarantor who' is Disneyland, not having Disneyland pay: Therefore, Disneyland would be concerned if in fact the amouht of revenue derived is much less than what was anticipated and part of that was to make sure that we get the right number of hotel beds added to the resort area, particularly in larger pieces of property. So, I think what we see before us; I can characterize it as a way the private sector providing through more of a market driven force an equivalent to the subsidy that the City once considered - ih terms of maintaining the bed tax the way it was, that goes there, maintaining the same number of bed units, hotel units thatYeally were planned but figuring out a way that a developer in those particular areas could make money from a product that is presently supported within the market place and that is adding condominium developments with some of those existing hotel developments such that they could afford to build it. So you can make the money to provide that. So, really what we are looking at is just giving an added opportunity to three br four areas in the City, three here, possibly even two, where hotels can be added. Is that this is? Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes. Mayor Pringle: In a nutshell. We are not looking to take away anyone's existing right, what they have rightnow to operate as they are or what they wish to operate in the future under their present zoning, they have that existing right: Just like pretty much what we did in the Platinum Triangle but in this fashion we are trying to'add some economic opportunity beyond what is presently allowed under their existing zone ahd general plan designation. Sheri Vander Dussen: That is correct. Mayor Pringle: Of which they don't have to take advantage of. No one is being mandated orboerced br encouraged so the two hotel sites, the Holiday Inn over on Manchester there, whatever that argument was, they must just be misunderstanding what the proposal is. 6 Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes, there will be no obligation for them to modify their existing use nor will they be denied any permits to expand existing uses, modify them or continue their use. Mayor Pringle: Very good. Any questions before we open the .public hearing? Seeing none, this is the time that we'll open the public hearing on this item. Anyone who wishes to speak on the item that is before us, now is the time they can speak... Yes, Ma'am. Judith Serafini and I live at 1835 South Manchester which is the site of the Plantation Mobile Home park, next door to Satellite Mobile Home Park. I just wanted to, this article was brought to my attention and that was in the Orange County Register. t wanted to first thank everybody on the council for proposing and following through on thee. , Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and for the staff for the great projects they have brought forth. And, I'd also like to thank you for responding to the market in the area of the Platinum Triangle. Where that was much debated but when it was shown that the: market wanted to purchase so it went from rental, proposed rentals, into the opportunity for home ownership. It's a much better use of $2,000-3,000 per month and it will. stabilize that area. In this article that appeared in today's register it says hotels versus homes. I think it's rather a misnomer. I live in a mobile home. My neighbors live in mobile home and they are homes. We have yards and we have neighbors and kids and we have seniors and disabled and Mental Health Association ahs clients who are in there and we have single parents, we have folks that are on Section 8 vouchers and we are very affordable. We are full: I checked a couple of weeks ago jor a friend, there is nothing available. So when I see that SunCal is looking at, well they'd like to go in and build houses and some affordable units -well, we are affordable. We are part of your affordable strategic plan. To provide within walking distance, jobs, many of our residents do work in the hotel district, they easily can get there, they can afford it. And, so, and perhaps people on the tenth floor of the neighboring Staybridge, ff they look out and see the Disneyland fireworks don't see really nice roofs. They see 35 year old trees, but they don't see really nice roofs. I would like to encourage you to take a look. at mobile homes for family. They are affordable living and we've proved. it. And so perhaps there should be a program or a portion of that affordable stragegic housing plan that recognizes that mobile homes are good quality living but we can't update our homes because there are no programs for us in the city of Anaheim and we can't take advantage of the county .programs because we have our own HA and we are not able to do that.. I am sure many residents would love to get out of their 1968 homes and would love to bring in a new home. Again, there is very little financing available to them to do that at an affordable rate so consequently homes are looking old and maybe look. shabby to outsiders but they provide quality living. We have a mix of ownership and. rentals and that's gone on for along time where again, Section 8 voucher holders,.. single parents, wonderful kids are able to come into that neighborhood and live affordably. For the first time, the Boys and Girls Club of Anaheim thanks to Daniel Gibson, did an outreach and I had a mother say to me, no organization in all the years had ever come into that park and provided youth opportunity for those students. They provided scholarships, transportation; they have a fun summer now, door to door. In 7 fact, one mother was going to put her child into Garden Grove which would have to really have adjusted her schedule and now she was able to have her daughter get on a bus at home and go right over to the Anaheim Boys and Girls Club. So, I would like you to be really cautious when someone comes and says we'll put in homes. Well, we have homes and we have working people that live there and they support the resort area and perhaps its time to take a look and say how can we help you have improvemerits and live affordably and be an asset to that area and not bulldozed for somebody else's concept of what affordable housing should be. Thank you. Mayor Pringle: Thank you. Could I ask you one question real quick? How many units are in your park? Judith Serafini: I think there's about 130 maybe in Plantation. I am not sure about Satellite. Mayor Pringle: So are you the larger of the two parks? Judith Serafini: I believe we are. Mayor Pringle: f see: Thank you. This isa public hearing, anyone else to address the council? I am Michael Capaldi and I am a principal in Renaissance Pacific Properties, and we are pleased to speak here this evening. We strongly support the general plan amendment. For many months our group has been planning a luxury hotel in the Anaheim Resort at the lot at 2322 South Harbor which is on the eastside of Harbor just south of Wilken Way. I'd like to tell you how this amendment will make the hotel possible able and I'll say how the overlay, we think, will help the city to achieve some of its goals for the resort and I'll use our proposal as an example. We think that the amendment will-enable the city to accomplish three things: First it will revitalize that area on Harbor south of Orangewood: It's an area that really needs it. Secondly it will generate a truly substantial amount of transient occupancy tax for the city. Third, it will bring to the resort a nationally renowned luxury hotel operator. That would help the convention center capture more and really higher end conventions for the city. We appreciated Charles Ollers remarks here earlier, we have been working with him on formulating our plan. Ultimately we think the project will do all of these things for the city, but it would also respect the Anaheim Resort purpose which is to provide visitors with a world class vacation experience. Keep in mind that on this property, we do not have a project yet, we haven't submitted our plan for approval and I know that the staff has not begun to consider conditions at this moment.. Let me tell you a little bit about the development we have in mind because it will serve as an example of the kinds of project that you would encourage if you were to approve this overlay: We have been developing, planning a 320 room luxury hotel, it will include about 12,000 square foot luxury spa, 25,000 sq. feet of public meeting space, gourmet signature restaurant, other restaurants, pools, cabanas, resort style landscaping. The building is being designed by the architects of the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills and newly renovated 8 L'Hermdtage there. Probably at this point, the most critical element of the effort would be to get the agreement of a famous luxury hotel operator to manage the hotel. Those - - conversations we had with hotel operators have gone well and approving the overlay before you today will send a strong signal to the hotel management community that a project like this is feasible for the city of Anaheim. One thing to keep do mind is that as we see it the critical element of the city's interest is in generating transient occupancy tax. Our pro forma suggests that over a period of 10 years, you are very likely to see bed taxes of about $40 million and that's in addition to sales taxes of $8 million over the same period. We think that projects like this fit the Anaheim Resort and fulfill its unique purpose. Now of course the overlay would allow an element of residential use for these projects, but it really is, we think, wrong to think of them as residential in nature. These are hotel projects.. The city has essentially guaranteed that by requiring the residential to be planned and built around and fully integrated into a hotel. From an economic perspective also, the condominium residential exists only to support the hotel use itself. In the hotel business, the facts of light are plain and they are pretty tough.. Without some sort of money generator, a hotel itself of this type is not going to be able to service its debt. More and more you see, internationally, throughout the company, you see hotel developers turning to residential condominium in order to make the hotel work. Ultimately, timing is critical, very important to us at thispoint. We would really dike to be able to show the major luxury operators who have expressed willingness in being in Anaheim that this kind of project would be feasible here in the resort. So we would encourage approval of the general plan and would hope that you take that up seriously this evening. Thank you. Mayor Pringle: Mc Capaldi, Mr. Sidhu has a question. Council Member Sidhu: I've got a quick question for you. When you build this hotel,. not condominiums, are the condominiums every be rented like a quality hotel in case some of the owners decide they are not here and they will give some kind of, you know you might have, I mean you will have some kind of agreement when they are not here, they will be able to rent them. Are you going to collect the TOT tax on that? How you plan to work this out? Michael Capaldi: So, the question is whether the condominium element could be rented out to folks who might want to stay for some period of time in the condominium? Council Member Sidhu: Just like the hotel that you have and these condominium people would like give it to you and say while we are not here, go ahead and rent it. And will you be collecting TOT tax from that? I mean we need to work out with the city is that the plan? Is part of the plan that you will be renting and taking that imitative and taking that as a rental unit? Michael Capaldi: No, in fact the plan is to avoid that as much as legally possible. The intention is that condominium residents will be living there year round and this will be their full-time residence. And, we will do everything in our power to avoid their leasing those properties out and running effectively a small time share or some kind of de facto hotel element there. The luxury brand operators are really discouraging that, we are working with them to keep that from happening. Now, there may be - we haven't fully° examined the question and we think there might be some limits on our ability and CC&R's and the like to prohibit all leasing of those rooms but the hotel operatorsare insisting that they be responsible for the renting of those units; if indeed, they are , offered. And that would mean that they would be prepared and we would be prepared that the City would get the transient occupancy tax that would be due for the rental of that condominium unit. So the short answer is that we are doing everything that we can to discourage that but to the extent that it has to happen under the law, the City would be due its tax. Council Member Sidhu: My question is not to discourage you, its trying to improve the revenue stream for the city, number 1. Number 2, it will be easier for you sell some of these condominium units which can give an opportunity, more like time share units in Las Vegas and they turn over to the hotel to rent. These condominiums will be five stars rather than one or two stars. I am not trying to discourage you not to do that, I just wanted to know as we would like to see if there would be an income stream from the TOT point of view. Mayor Pringle: Actually, in this regard, if there is any, you know, you have not developed any specific plan on your project, have you. Michael Capaldi: Not yet. Mayor Pringle: You are working onputting together a specific plan? Michael Capaldi: We are. Mayor Pringle: So you are putting together the overall product that one day you may. submit to the city? And if you do, I thihk the hard part of the discussion will be if you walk down the path as Mr. Sidhu suggests; we have some degree of experience with, for example, Garden Walk, where that was one of those four hotel type units was a time share type unit and in that case we were .able to devise a strategy by which we were able to seize the TOT and I think all Mr. Sidhu is pointing out is if you do walk down that path, City staff is already aware they are going to seize the TOT in one fashion or another. Michael Capaldi: We would expect that: Mayor Pringle: You, at this point in time, don't anticipate that those would be rental units or hotel condominium units but in fact true :high rise luxury condominums on the top of the hotel. Michael Capaldi: Right. A time share use for these condos would be incompatible. from a marketing standpoint to a luxury hotel so there is not going to be much of it. 10 Mayor Pringle: Very good. Mc Sidhu, any other questions Council Member Sidhu: No. I have a question for the staff on this same issue. For this particular project, will they be sharing or paying all the landscaping and cleaning, whatever is needed, will that be part of that? Will they have to pay a share and be part of the Anaheim Resort District? Tom Wood: It is not currently, we envision that it would be. Mayor Pringle: You may recall, Mr. Sidhu; months ago we had a presentation about six months ago now and its really surprising to have taken us so long to get back but six months ago we talked about the area of Orangewood south, presently that area is not within the Resort area plan but the staff has'been putting together a plan that would. providethe same type of equitable treatment to those businesses as it is in all the rest of the resort: That line was at Orangewood for some reason. So, I think staff is trying to figure out how to put that together and there will be a proposal to establish a lighting and landscaping district down there or some equivalent system by which not only the public improvements would be added but also the maintenance would be provided: Council Member Sidhu: My suggestion on this particular project would be, if it goes through, that as part of their project, have the landscaping and upgrade the same as the resort area district is because we'll make that part of it and later on we will be going in that direction and I want to make sure that if they go and submit a project it should look like the same as the resort area: Sheri Vander Dussen: As part of the overlay, they would be subject to the existing. development standards that apply to the rest of the resort. Mayor Pringle: Very good. This is a public hearing: Is there anyone else to address the Council on this item? Good evening honorable Mayor and members of the citycouncil. My name is Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 18101 Van Karmin, Suite 1280, Irvine, California. I have a few comments to make tonight, I'dJike to make them short and in the most simple terms: First of all I'II tell you why we are here and also comment on some of the statements made by Sheri Vander Dussen to you this evening about the SunCal proposal and so forth: But as we may or the council may have some questions, of our presentation, I did want you to know that Ryan Easter who prepared the letter from the Palmieri firm is here as well as Patrick Hennessey, James .Edison from Economic Research Associates who prepared one of the attachments to the last letter we sent to you on August 16'" pertaining to the Focus Site Analysis on which I will speak of_ Mr. Carmen Morenello is here as well as Michael Zischke from Morrison and Foster who will comment on some of the CEQA questions and Lou Feldman who is our affordable housing expert from the Goodwin Procter firm. 11 I think so the council can appreciate our presence here tonight - we are here essentially as a result of staffs request to provide for a residential housing type within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and I specifically refer to staffs report as well as several of the attachments, wherein I quote you "the project, the project before the residential overlay. zone involves a general plan amendment to allow development of residential uses:. within two targeted areas of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. There. are currently no provisions in the general plan that allow residential uses within the properties designated for commercial recreation land use. Site A and Site B are currently designated in the specific plan and general plan for development of visitor serving uses. The SunCal proposal as described by your staff virtually takes up one half of the area in Site A and Site B before you tonight which is for the residential overlay zone and represents well over a majority of the property within site A of the residential overlay zone you are reviewing this evening. We were. unable to provide any substantive comments to your Planning Commission as a result of the fact we were not provided with sufficient notice; We found out about this request a few weeks beforehand and therefore indicated we would be providing comments to this council tonight.. And let me sort of tell you what it is we are asking for this evening. We are asking the city to; include an additional alternative to the residential overlay zone which would allow a residential product provided that such development is on the site currently or formerly covered by the mobile home park overlay zone and such development contains an affordable housing component of at least 15 percent of the market rate units. That request is summarized in our letter as I mentioned to you dated August,16`h. And in this. case, that would be approximately 200 affordable housing units that would be rental units as a part of our proposal. I think as the Mayor indicated a moment ago, we don't , have a specific project as did the other gentleman who spoke tonight so you would not be approving any project, you simply would be providing us with the same opportunity.. that you would be providing to this other development to provide for residential housing of a different sort as 1 mentioned. Of course, this site would seem to be fairly ideal for our recommendation, it is currently residential, it is cun•ently a mobile homepark, and it is currently affordable housing as well. The question I would like to address here as; well has to do with this sort of mystique of this Anaheim Resort Focus Site Analysis. And I'd like to describe it here briefly for a moment because in the comments made by Sheri Vander Dussen just a few moments ago, she indicated that the Anaheim Resort. Focus Site Analysis was. never referenced. or utilized,in conjunction with the preparation of the residential overlay zone.: Now, I want to step: back: here for a moment .and discuss that. This particular Focus Site Analysis was commissioned by the city last June to evaluate the feasibility of allowing any residential development in the Anaheim Resort area. And I mention any of any sorts. And in fact, the first page of the report. , and this is verbatim, it says the report describes economic and. planning systems, evaluation of the market conditions in Anaheim, to assess land use options for three potential development sites located within the Anaheim Resort.. The City anticipates that it may receive proposals for residential development for at least two of the sites rather than tourist oriented developments per existing zoning and wishes to better understand the viability of the timing of the hotel and visitor serving uses on these sites before considering residential units. And as I will explain here shortly, Mayor, that the report also addresses tax related implications of alternative uses and describes the 12 fiscal implications of changing the plahned Uses for the sites. So in view of the. objectives set forth by staff in your presentation, surely it seemed reasonable. that the City would consider and analysis that they had prepared over a year ago evaluating the viability of residential use within the area. Mayor Pringle: Excuse me, Mr. Elfend. Is that staff report, is that report being quoted and referenced a part of cur packet? Sheri Vander Dussen: No, it isn't in your packet: Mayor Pringle: So, it's kind of tough to hear what that report says. Frank Elfend: Excuse me, I believe it's in the packet we provided to you and it's in the. letter of, I believe, June 12, a letter submitted by the Palmieri firm, the study is attached. Sheri Vander Dussen: It is attached to that letter. Mayor Pringle: Okay- to that letter. I just wanted to know, Mr. Elfend, if it was a part of our packet today so I could look at it today.- Frank Elfend: Interestingly enough, the Focus Site Analysis indicated that the three... sites analyzed, and I would point out to you as well of the sites that the city evaluated, the one, the two sites tonight, I believe. and our site was in there and the other site, of course was the site known as Park Anaheim as was mentioned earlier by your staff which is proposed for almost entirely residential land use as well. The findings of the study was that only the Platinum Pointe property was suitable for conversion to residential use and I quote "the Platinum Pointe site is not currently appropriate for hotel. development. It's location is relatively far from Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center and is therefore not likely to directly benefit from the sources of demand for hotel rooms.: Furthermore, the only hotel located directly next to the site is the Staybridge Suites which minimizes the benefits of hotel clustering. So deductibly so, when we had a chance, of course, to review this study, we recognized the City prepared a study on residential use within the Anaheim Resort area. And they came up with a single site, only a single site, they recommended use for conversion. Mr. Mayor, you raised a :point earlier in your comments regarding the TOT and so forth and how that would relate. to the sale of the bonds and so forth and actually that issue was evaluated in the Anaheim Resort Focus Site Analysis and conversion of site 3 and site 3 was the Platinum Pointe: project .... Mayor Pringle: Is that the two mobile home parks you presently own? Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't know the name of the project. , Frank Elfend: Yes, sir.: ...to residential uses as unlikely to have an impact on the: LPMR. The LPMR are the basis for payment for the debt service for improvements to the Anaheim Resort that are measured largely by increases in the TOT. As noted. above the development of Site 3 as a hotel may not occur from 15-20 years and c ould 13 no longer because of its site related costs the TOT from the site, if and when it developed for hotel uses will represent only 3.2 percent of the total LPMR for 2025 and- - goes on to indicate that the concern that you had, at least as it relates to this site was addressed and found out not to be significant as it relates to the matter that you so raised. In the staff report as well, there was another reference that I also recall was stated by Sheri Vander Dussen in her comments that we have not submitted a' formal application to the city nor by the way has the gentleman who was here before us. But I do want to clarify a few points here and that is since April of last year when we first sat down and discussed this project with the city, we have been meeting with the staff and have been preparing various exhibits, documentation and so forth and actually in October of last year, we did submit to the city a letter and-a packet of exhibits which included a project description, our affordable housing component, information on the Gene Autry Way extension, information on compliance with CEQA and exhibits and other entitlement information. Back in October and'in fact Mr. Tom Wood, who is to the right of me, sent me a letter indicating that we still needed to provide to the city a site, a landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plans, traffic study, parking analysis, infrastructure analysis and more details on our affordable housing component. And I will tell you, honorable members of this city council, we have been working very hard in preparing those documents that is a significant amount of information to prepare.. t would also remind the city just for clarification purposes that in that same time period that we also addressed two other issues. Of course this being one of them which we have also addressed how should we say for the last 90 days or so and then Mr. mayor, you may recall the City had proposed a grand parkway around the time that we became involved in this projectand that was around some time in May -June and it was not until I believe some time in September was that matter finally resolved by the city and if I can recall at that time, they indicated the Grand Parkway was removed. So, having said that and addressing one final comment, that also has been raised by staff, and that is the adequacy of our proposal because mind you we are asking you to take this action tonight to include it as simply as an alternative ;again, not approving the project, simply providing us with the same opportunity as you were providing elsewise this everting. and the question of CEQA and the SunCal proposal had come up vis a vis the adequacy of the City's negative declaration for the SunCal recommended overlay for residential uses only. I would point out to you that our response to that comment is included in both the July 6~' and August 16~' , 2006 correspondence to the city to Sheri Vander Dussen which indicates that we believe unequivocally that the CEQA documentation would be sufficient again for our level of request which. essentially is but for the overlay zone. However, in an effort to bring in another party, somebody who is extremely well known, nationally known for CEQA and the adequacy of such documents, I have here tonight Mr. Michael Zischke to speak to that issue. Mayor and Council Members, I am Michael Zischke of Morrison and Forrester, and I do specialize state Environmental Quality Act all around the state advising cities, businesses, and applicants on how to comply with CEQA and the adequacy of ' documents. Do that work for some cities in California and have defended them in court and when I was asked by SunCal is the mitigated negative declaration adequate for our SunCal's proposal, took that same approach to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigated 14 negative declaration: Basically you are in a situation that is not uncommon in the CEQA process where you've done a CEQA document, some changes proposed, it may come, in this case it comes from SunCal, sometimes it comes from a council and you need to consider is that change adequately covered by the analysis that is in the CEQA document. Is the process adequate? Has the environmental review and the public . disclosure been adequate.. I reviewed the negative declaration, reviewed the staff reports and came to a conclusion I thought relatively easily. The mitigated negative declaration that has been prepared is adequate for either choice that the council makes with respect basically to the policy choice before you tonight. It's adequate for the staff proposal; it's adequate for the SunCal alternative and there are several reasons that it is, primarily because what the mitigated negative declaration evaluation is adding residential uses. So it goes thru the discussion of various impact categories, the geology, other areas and evaluates adding residential uses and SunCaPs proposal is just a different twist on that residential use.. If you look at an impact, for example, such. as schools where there's a specific statute that basically determines what the result is in an initial study that accompanies the mitigated negative declaration. That conclusion would apply equally to the residence in the SunCal proposal as it would to a residence that is part of a luxury hotel through the staff proposal. So essentially, the two conceptual typesof projects, the residence with luxury hotel, the residence that is not with luxury hotel are procedurally within the same posture before the council tonight. You've got a negative declaration that has evaluated adding residential uses, it has disclosed to the public residential use and CEQA does have those two purposes, doing environmental evaluation but also giving public notice, public disclosure and both types of projects are only being permissibly included in the overlay, there is not a specific project before you, there would need to be subsequent environmental review of either. type of project so as I look at the record that is before the council, the environmental review, the disclosure that's been provided, the two types of projects are all the same and the process and the record equally support the SunCal alternative approach as they do the staff recommended approach. There's some support for this and its mentioned in the letter that I wrote which is an attachment to the letter from the Palmieri firm, in the CEQA guidelines which talks about when you have to circulate a negative declaration and basically to summarize a sort of long and complicated guideline, you have to recirculate when there is some new significant impact that wasn't disclosed in the first go-around that needs to be mitigated. When you make changes in response to something that comes up in the process and there is not a significant impact, youdon't need to recirculate, and I think that guideline supports the conclusion that the mitigated negative declaration is adequate. I'd be happy to elaborate or respond to questions but that's basically summarizing the review that I did looking at this for the first time fairly recently based on the mitigated negative declaration and what it says under the provisionsof the CEQA statue and guidelines. And I appreciate your time, thank you. Mayor Pringle: Very good, thank you. All right, anyone else wish to address the council? 15 Frank Elfend: Let me just make a conclusionary comment here on that. If anyone here on the council again has any question of course, we look forward to also submitting our plan to you especially our affordable housing .plan...., Mayor Pringle: Your first statement, Mr. Elfend, if I could and pardon me for interrupting you, is to have a different designation for your property singled out. Is that correct? Frank Elfend: Pardon me? Mayor Pringle: I need to hear what your proposal was initiated at the beginning of your comments. Frank Elfend: Yes, our request is included in our August 16~' correspondence to the city where we have provided an alternative, in other words, we're not, we are fully supportive of what the city is proposing. We are suggesting there simply be another altemative which would permit what I had indicated and it is Attachment A in our letter and Attachment B would be a provision for residential uses in conjunction with again a 15 percent affordable housing component which in the case of our. project would be roughly 200 affordable housing units. So we are asking for a similar overlay concept as what is being proposed by the staff in a similar fashion. Mayor Pringle: Thank you very much. Frank Elfend: Thank you. Mayor Pringle: Ms. Vander Dussen, if I could just ask, the discussion on the original overlay would protect the interest in having resort related activities on those sites, is that correct? Sheri Vander Dussen: Absolutely. Mayor Pringle: And at the same time, to say there would be a requirement to cover the present obligation, let's say, for resort area units, the same number of hotel units that were planned and there would be a one for one tradeoff opportunity for residential to be apart of that or what? Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes, they are not obligated to build the maximum allowable hotel units under the current zoning but what they could build is a combination of residential and hotel that would equal the maximum hotel allocation on the property provided they could demonstrate the environmental equivalency of that many hotel rooms. Mayor Pringle: I see. So in the case of the property that was referenced by Mr. Elfend, that would be how many hotel rooms and how many units? 16 Sheri Vander Dussen: I believe the zoning on their property allows 1,920 hotel rooms,.. is that correct, Susan, to be developed on their property. So under the overlay, they could do a combination of residential units and hotel rooms that did not exceed 1,920 provided they demonstrated the environmental equivalency of their combination. Mayor Pringle: demonstrated the environmental equivalency? Sheri Vander Dussen: demonstrated the environmental equivalency. They can't generate more sewer and traffic that we originally .... Mayor Pringle: Therefore, you've seen the letters submitted by Mr. Elfend's attorney and that of SunCal, in that regard, what do you read of that request? Sheri Vander Dussen: The major difference is that they are proposing to allow residential uses without, not in conjunction with the resortvse. So they basically would be .removing their property from the Resort Specific Plan in terms of its use as a resort property.: It would become a residential site as opposed to a site that would be reserved for resort uses. Mayor Pringle: Therefore; in the parlance of the zoning law, we had a specific plan there so that's a little different, what is the request according to your interpretation of the.. letter that was provided; the equivalency in terms of density? Sheri Vander Dussen: I don't believe their proposal clarifies that.. Their proposal allows for an overlay that would allow for residential development on properties. presently under the mobile home park overlay zone. But I do not believe, and I could be wrong.... Mayor Pringle: Therefore, within their letter, though, there was a reference to the affordability component but not necessarily to any density requirement, correct? Sheri Vander Dussen: Correct. Mayor Pringle: This is a continuing public hearing, anyone else wish to address the council on this item? Hi Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council My .name is Chris Lowe and I'm here tonight representing the Disneyland Resort and I'm here to also speak specifically to the. item we have before us which is an overlay zone for the proposed site A and site B. But before I speak to that specific issue, I do want to complement the members of this council on the vision and the planning that they have put forth in this specific area around City Hall and the downtown :promenade area and specifically the Platinum Triangle area. All of us at Disney are very proud of the vision and we worked very closely with this council and members of this city and our good neighborhood hotels more than ten years ago to create the Resort Specific Plan and 'I'm here specifically to talk about that vision that we created over ten years ago and make sure that the 17 vibrancy and the quality that we have here today exists for future generations in future years. As I said before., this has been a partnership that has produced significant fruih and the 50~' anniversary that we have just come to the conclusion of is an example of where investments can certainly pay dividends from a standpoint of tot revenue and' increased revenue of not only our small, medium and large businesses, but all of our neighborhood hotels as well as our surrounding communities, I think you experienced a significant spike over the last 12 months. And that I think shows that if we stay true to that long-term vision, if we stayed true to the principles that we invested in over ten years ago, we are going to see that those dividends continue to grow, those dividends continue to produce fruit and the tot revenue continues to grow as well. We are very focused on the fact that Anaheim is and is becoming more of a world class destination location and we want to continue to make sure we support that. These two proposed sites as proposed by staff in the overlay zone we think quality for that vision from our standpoint in two specific categories. We believe that the resort component that is significant at the ground level speaks to the quality and vibrancy to the community that we've created within and around the Disneyland Resort: We also think it plays perfectly with the vision in the communities that you are presently communicating -the Platinum Triangle and the Promenade and the downtown area here, Center Street Promenade so we hope that you continue to follow staffs direction and look at protecting the quality within the resort area -there are beautiful communities you are creating just outside the resort and we would appeal to the city council to hold true on that vision that we embarked on several years ago and we see that there is significant potential Developments of which the speaker before me spoke of is one, as an example, where you have a quality resort component and on top you have a residential component. Our position has traditionally :been against residential developments within the resort district but we also realize that this is a climate where we need to look at each development and base it on its merits. Within the plan and the overlay that staff presented, we think presents a quality product that we could support especially in the outlying areas of the resort district. So I am here tonight to speak specifically in support of the overlay zones and then guard against some of the discussion that has come up subsequent to the proposed agenda item that is before you tonight to say that residential development, 100 percent residential development, we are fearful will go counter productive to the climate and really the quality and vibrancy that we've come to enjoy within the resort district and with that ... Mayor Pringle: Very good, thank you. Mc Sidhu, you have a question? Council Member Sidhu: I have a question. Now, Disney owns the parcel which is not too far there, right? And how many acres it is and what is the future plan for Disney to do? Mayor Pringle: That is a good question; we would like to hear the answer to that. Chris Lowe: The parcel you are referring to Mr. Sidhu is frequently called our Third Gate Parcel, south of Katella, east of Harbor all the way to Haster. Is that correct? There are currently no plans on that site but I can tell you with the quality of 16 development and certainly the intensity of development in the Platinum Triangle and within the Promenade area up here in the downtown, that the leaders within the Disney Company have been taking a serious look at those development possibilities, thus my involvement here this evening. As you can see by the diagram on the screen, our proposed 3`d gate parcel is just across the street from Plan A overlay that's being considered here tonight. The short answer is that we do not have formal plans that we are ready to bring forward but the development that has occurred certainly around the resort districtd and within the resort district, to be honest with you, with developments. like GardenWafk, the Mariott expansion, Trend West, the Doubletree, bringing Morton's and Ruth Chris certainly have folks at the Disney Company looking at opportunities. Council Member Sidhu: How long has the 3`~ gate site with opeh spaces, how long has it been vacant? Chris Lowe: How long was it? Well it was a strawberry field prior to the Disney acquisition so I would probably yield to city staff to,.. Mayor Pringle:. or Walt Disney because it probably was a field when he built the park in 1956.... Chris Lowe: Right. It's my understanding Council Member Sidhu: The question was how long has it been vacant since Disney owned it? Chris Lowe: Since we purchased it in '95. Council Member Sidhu: Okay, so it's been almost 11 years since its been idle up there...... Mayor Pringle: Thank you. This is a continuing public hearing. Anyone else wishing to address the city council during this public hearing time? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Are there any members of the City Council wishing to be heard on this item? Mr. Chavez? Council Member Chaver. 1 have a couple of questions. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable to this whole issue related to the Focus Site Analysis. Staff is saying they didn't consider it and yet based on Mr. Elfend's reading verbatim from the letter, it indicates they were specifically talking about this site and other sites. Why did we, did we pay for this analysis? Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes we did. Council Member Chavez: And why? Sheri Vander Dussen: A couple of years ago the City Manager asked us to look at 19 Mayor Pringle: You know Ms. Vander Dussen, if you could use your microphone. Even though it is not working it is providing to everyone who would see this later so I want to make sure for the record that you speak into it. Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes, thank you very much for. reminding me. A couple of years ago we looked at the resort plans. We wanted to make sure our land use regulations were not inconsistent with market demands and we had a broad based staff team to Zook at different uses in the resort as well. Where there is some additional uses that , maybe the market was suggesting were appropriate and would complement the resort. So we were initially using those market analyses to determine if the boundaries of the resort were too large. Our conclusion was that we were not going to propose any amendments to the boundaries of the resort absent Council direction. Mr. Elfend may have city studies or other studies that say his site is suitable for residential development and that very well may be the case. There very well may be a market demand for residential use on that property but right now our general plan and our specific plans designate that area for resort development and so that is the direction of the council, that is staffs policy. What they are proposing tonight with respect to amending the. overlay is a deparkure from our plans that had been in place for many years designating that site for resort development. So it's really a policy decision as to whether the council wants to still require resort development on that site or to allow some other type of use to occur on that site. Council Member Chaves: Okay, in 1994, the specific plan was developed which created that to be designated as resort. So, some 12 years has gone by. Now, Mr. Elfend quotes the letter as saying for some 10-20 more years, the site he is discussing will still not be suitable for resort. Is that correct? Sheri Vander Dussen: I believe that the study says that in the long-term, there could. be resort development on that property but we probably won't see it in the near term. Council Member Chaves: Did it say 10-20 years? Sheri Vander Dussen: I'm sorry I don't have the study in front of me. Council Member Chavez: Well if we paid for the study, why don't you have it? I'm confused about it, that's where I'm having difficulty. Sheri Vander Dussen: I personally don't have it Council Member Chavez, but other people here do and if you'd like to give us a few moments, we can look that up. We'd be happy to do that. Mayor Pringle: Excuse me Mr. Chavez. When was the study done? Sheri Vander Dussen: Two years ago? 2005 20 Mayor Pringle: I see. I think that whatever information that we need to have we should make sure we share it but let's be nice about it. I'm sure in terms of putting. - - - together the overall plan you reviewed and worked through a lot of documents that you may not personally have in front of you. - Council Member Chavez: So do you have it in front of you Sheri Vander Dussen: I now have it in front of me and if you'd like me to read it to you and I'm reading on page 5 of the study in case anyone else happens to have a copy and is following along "conversion of site to create a .residential use is unlikely to have an impact on lease payment measurement revenues (the LPMR) . The LPMR are the basis of payment for debt service focimprovements to the area and are measured largely by increases in TOT. As noted above, development of Site 3 as a hotel may not occur for 10-15 years and the TOT from the site even when developed with hotel uses will represent only 3.2 percent of the total LPMR in the year 2025." So the consultant has indicated that hotel development may not occur for 10-15 years. Council Member Chavez: Okay, second question. Was that analysis revised? Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes, as the study evolved, it was revised? Council Member Chavez: A month later? Sheri Vander Dussen: I would have to look up the dates to answer that question but I believe that. is approximately correct.. Council Member Chavez: Mr. Elfend indicated that he had requested any records regarding study of those sites so that he could potentially develop their site, but we did. not supply hose studies to Mr. Elfend; is that correct? Sheri Vander Dussen: Mr. Elfend submitted a public records request and in fact, the City Attorney's office had written a letter to the legal firm representing, that had submitted the letters on our documents and indicated that and I'll quote from our letter, "despite the fact that most of the records requested in your September letter are not in the custody of the City Clerk and the voluminous and arguably overbroad nature of the aspects of your request, the City Clerk's office went beyond its duties to voluntarily compile records from other departments believed to be responsive to your extensive request and to provide a timely response enumerating the responsive records." So, we believe that we have attempted to .respond to their public records request. The studies they are referencing we really didn't even make public, we didn't provide them in reports for the council. It's interesting they are even aware of the fact they were even prepared. Council Member Chavez: Were they provided to any of the other developers? Sheri Vander Dussen: We did provide one of the studies to the developer at the Harbor/Ball site. 21 Council Member Chaves: Okay. I'm having difficulty with this, I'm telling ya. This - -- seems odd that we would spend money, taxpayer's dollars, to do studies to see what is the best use for properties in the resort. And then we would share that documentation with one developer and not with another. And then we would have a study that was done in June and then redone in July with a different finding. IJow as presiderit of the Firefighter's Union I had an issue and I just got to vent and maybe you'll understand why this is bothering me. I had an issue with the way some of our newer firefighers were being treated in the fire station, African Americans. I complained and filed a grievance. The City had a consultant do a study, the study came back, it was 22 pages thick. The consultant himself the study showed there was a major problem in the way the young African American firefighters were being treated in the fire stations. Three weeks later a report came to the fire station telling me that there wasn't a problem at all and that the consultant had changed his report same to say that there wasn't a problem and the fire chief saying there wasn't a problem. I will never forgive Anaheim for doing` that, it was the wrong thing to do and I'm seeing a similar situation here. Quite frankly, I know it's a bad analogy and a sore spot with me but I'm seeing a disparity in treatment here. The fact is and I'm going to move on to the broader issue here, the fact is Mr. Lowe talked about Disney and they are excited about development because things seem to be turning around in the city. The types of development that we are considering in the resort create a lot of low income jobs. Today at council alone, we had to deal with an issue of parking because people are not, there is not sufficient - amount of parking for the residents that live there now. The reason that is, the parking's a symptom. The problem is there isn't enough housing. That's the problem and if we create more luxury hotels and I like Mr. Capaldi's project, but it only creates more need for housing. Mr. Elfend has brought us a project that helps remedy some of that. It's a vacant piece of property, not vacant, there's housing there now but it's underutilized: They had the option to build a hotel there for 12 years, a report that says it probably won't happen for another 10-15 years; I think what they are recommending makes sense. And certathly we need the housing and we certainly need the affordable housing:. Mayor Pringle: Very good: Anyone else wish to make a comment? Ms. Galloway? Council Member Galloway: Yes. We should talk about this potential of SunCal project being a departure from resort plans that were created in 1994. This is many, many years later and lots of things have happened since then. And there's an environment today that we are really trying to deal with and remedy. You know it is no secret that I am passionate about affordable housing, that is no secret to anybody. One of the simple things that I look at is currently there is affordable housing, there's mobile home housing on this property and all of that will be gone. We have a Strategic Affordable Housing Plan that calls for 1,200 units in four years, but to me that was done to answer to the Platinum Triangle having absolutely no affordable housing. That 22 doesn't address the needs throughout the City; it doesn't address the needs of housing that will be taken away. And, it doesn't address the needs of the future. It doesn't address the needs of what will happen when you create hotels and a lot of service sector jobs. I think the high end luxury hotel with the condominium component is a' good thing. That's great. I think that belongs there. I would love to see it but I equally think housing belongs there too. I can see that both of them are needed and both of them should be there. Mayor Pringle: Very good. Mr. Hernandez has reached for his button. Go ahead. Council Member Hernandez: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The two studies that were done, the June and July studies, the July study basically gave exactly the opposite results as the June study. Sheri Vander Dussen: The June study was a draft that was subject to review by City staff. And, as f indicated City staff, our interest was in not changing the boundaries of the resort at that time. Our interests was in identifying if there were other uses that would. be suitable in the resort and. are the sites at the periphery of the resort. appropriately within the resort in terms of being suitable for residential development. Staff had decided that we are not going to pursue changes to the resort boundaries regardless of any findings or market study or what not. But the consultant initially had cooked at feasibility of residential and had concluded that the site was probably suitable for residential development. But again, what we were looking for again is are these properties properly placed. in the resort and can we expect resort development to happen on them and the consultant has confirmed that r esort development if it's going to occur, it's going to be a long ways out:: Council Member Hernandez: So, for the second report you changed the parameters? Sheri Vander Dussen: As I recall, we did provide clear direction to the consultant, that we were not trying to look for ways to modify the boundaries of the resort. We wanted to find out how realistic our assumptions were with respect to resort development, happening within the boundaries that were presently defined. Council Member Hernandez: As I recall, one of the phrases, actually there were two phrases, one in dune report and almost the identical phrase in the July report and the. only difference was that the word "not" was included behind the word "do." The word "do" ,that we do recommend and it was in the June report, and the sentence was exactly the same except the July. report said. "do not" and it seems strange to me and obviously it seems strange to Mr. Chavez as well that this report wouldcome back like that Sheri Vander Dussen: With all due respect to all the council members and the questions surrounding the studies, the study really isn't relevant. Because, if the Council wants to .make a policy decision to change the resort zoning, you can. You don't need a market study believes to justify that. So, I understand that there are some 23 questions regarding how the study evolved, but regardless of that, if the Council believes that it is appropriate to allow residential development in the resort, that can be "' done. That's a policy level decision. We just have to go through the right process with respect to how we notice the action and how we provide the environmental documentation Council Member Hernandez: Well, Mr. Elfend ,where did he go, Mr: Elfend testified tonight that he had a letter from the city that said that the survey was not used to determine -are you ready? Sheri Vander Dussen: yes, thank you. I apologize: Council Member Hernandez: Mc Elfend provided a cited letter from the city that he received that said that the survey had not been used to determine the feasibility of his project, Sheri Vander Dussen: No, that is not what staff had indicated: What was indicated was that we didn't use that study when we were looking at applying the overlay zone that would allow residential development in conjunction with a full service' hotel. That is what we had indicated: We did not contemplate changing the land use designation oh any one's property ih the resort for residential development as part of this. overlay zone- effort: Council Member Hernandez: What was the reason this original study was requested? Sheri Vander Dussen: We were looking at the overall resort and we adopted the zoning about ten years ago and we wanted to make sure that our plans were still relevant: As you know we've done a comprehensive general plan update, it was kind of along those lines. Should we be modifying any of our land use regulations to keep up with the market to be able to make sure that the resort is still competitive. We' brought. in the folks from the convention center, are there some additional land uses or densities that we should be looking at that would complement development on the convention center that would make the convention center more attractive to their goal of attracting more conventions.. So, that was the overall study that we had started and that was the spirit in which we were commencing the studies. One of the things that Jonathan has pointed out is between the second and third`, excuse me, the first and second draft of that study there were a number of factors pointed out to the consultants that had noh been analyzed in the first go around: For instance, the freeway was a significant barrier to the site at Ball and Harbor and that hadn't been factored into the evaluation. And now if I could just ask him to whisper in my ear some of the other factors that he recalls.... I'm sorry -- that was one of the issues that was brought up with respect to the remoteness of the Ball/Harbor site and the freeway being a kind of perceived barrier getting to and from the resort. Council Member Hernandez: Well, it just seems like there is a lot of obfuscation here. And, it really leaves me unsettled. And, I'm not sure exactly what we need to do here 24 but I'm certainly in favor of the amendment and I would certainly support it, but I think that Mr. Elfend's suggestion, this amendment to that makes sense to me. I'm not sure if we're, like I said, if we approve the plan it would still encompass Mr. Elfend's project,. am I right? Sheri Vander Dussem What, the overlay zone? Council Member Hernandez: Yes: Sheri Vander Dussen: Yes it would encompass his property: Council Member Hernandez: Mr. Elfend, I apologize. I've forgotten exactly what your amendment was. Mayor Pringle: I think they have a copy of that and it could be discussed at the .appropriate time. Council Member:Hernandez: And when would that be? Mayor Pringle: Well, when other members of Council have points:. I want to make. sure you are done. Council Member Hernandez: I just want to hear the reiteration of amendment proposed. Mayor Pringle: F see. Well we can gef to that. I guess part of the question tonight, I am really wondering what is going on here myself. It's very strange. To have members of this Council call into question the staff and maybe even staffs integrity, it bothers me. Because I see the proposal from the staff is to give additional development opportunities to a couple of pieces of property. I don't see before us a proposal to change the other uses of the resort area. So, because they were unwilling to bring before this Council whereby Council had never suggested that we wanted to change the direction of the resort area, that was never a directive of this Council, and with a single exception over the last four years that I am aware of was when we allowed for the continuation of office uses for a portion of office designated space, the only time that we have at any time modified the resort area so I believe what I hear is that there had been discussion. By the way, two or three previous long-term owner, Dudley Franks piece of property as well as a couple of other developers .had contemplated and sought the ability before SunCal's position within the property to see where they were for potential conversion to residential. At that point in time, those developers were told there's a council policy, the plan was all established and if there was discussion to change that. use, that discussion has a proper role in which that could be rolled out. So let's not blame staff that they did not come and propose amending out portions of the resort, this portion or any other portion of the resort, that their proposal isn't to amend that out because they are looking at the feasibility of development of the hotel. Over the last ten years we have seen the feasibility of hotel development pretty weak., no question. 25 about it. There's about three of four or five factors that presented themselves but we were all standing at a groundbreaking of the GardenWalk after many, many years worth of a plan and a project that was there. That project didn't happen at the time it was approved or at the time funding was approved or under the conditions that were established. That came about long after that as did the Doubletree at the corner of Orange, as did the time share property, so we all know that there's a flux in terms of development opportunity and today residential's booming and residential's boom may go away soon but we all hope that we can realize as much as possible. But let's not criticize staff for bringing forward a proposal or for in fact doing research and studying ideas that would ensure that the plan that was established on this piece of property is fulfilled. If someone wishes to change that plan or propose a change or has an idea, I think there's a lot of steps in which tat could happen. And usually that comes about when you propose a general plan amendment , a specific plan modification, a site plan amendment or a site plan proposal for a piece of property and you present it and you work through that process. I guess that's what I, I just want to make sure we have before us is this. I know there is plenty of talk and hope for maybe other development to take place but I'm asking that we don't direct our sights or any attack on our staff for doing the job we asked of them. Mr. Sidhu is next Mr. Chavez. Council Member Chavez: I want to address the points that you are making. The fact is I did go to staff and showed interest in that particular site, the Dudley Franks site, to consider that being all residential for affordable housing back in October. I met with staff and said I am very interested in the possibility of developing this site. And 1 did and if there was a study that was done months earlier that would suggest that there could be an impact based upon a study on how that site's going to be developed, it would be relevant to me to get that information. To say that it's not relevant, I don't think is a fair statement. For me, I was looking at that. Mayor Pringle: Fine. I was unaware of your separate interest outside of any of the other discussion. If they were looking to prepare a proposal that now is before us, I did not know that you had a separate inquiry with staff. Okay. Very good. Mr. Sidhu. Council Member Sidhu: Sheri, how many mobile homes within the resort area right now? Sheri Vander Dussen: We think there area 151 in the Satellite Park and 122 in the Plantation Park. Council Member Sidhu: Besides this particular location. ' MayorPringle: Those are the only two within this project area, CounciP Member Sidhu; I see. You know, the way I see it, this is actually residential homes and the rents would be what - $200 or $300 a month these folks would be paying. Try $800, $800 plus - is that what they are paying. Look at the point of view when somebody owns a property and a city has specific requirements if they want to 26 have a different zone, they got to come forward. So from resort, these people are allowed to only have resort here. They have residential right now. So basically it's a property right issue. I mean we are trying to do the best we can to help every individual who owns the property within the city. What's going on here, asking questions, maybe commenting on the integrity'of the staff that something is going on. I tell you I feel very sad to see that when the staff goes out and gets these reports done and suddently withikn 30 days things are different. I'm not saying one specific member of the staff has to do with this. I would like to ask Mr. white what are my options here if I'd like to have an inquiry on this base will happen, why this thing has changed, is that an outside - forces has made this change, to change the report. And if it did; I would like to know what are my choices here: Jack White, City Attorney: I think that is up to the City Council as to what you want to do as far as having any type of report made and by whom. You can do that. Its up to you to decide. Staff would take whatever direction you give on that. Council Member Sidhu: Because you know, to have a material change from within 30 days, it's a very significant difference specifically on you not be given answers as to why this thing has happened. So I personally would like to request, I want to goon record to have an inquiry done to find out how these consultants were hired, this report was changed. I need an answer. I am sorry to say that I'm not putting my staff on line but somewhere along the line, there are some forces out there that have made this change that the consultants have changed this report. It actually affects some property owners here and I want to make sure that we are doing the right thing because if it can happen today, it can happen again. I personally fee if this project is changed from the way its been approved by the Planning Commission, it will be a complement to have this particular location, the way it was presented change it to residential zoning and at the ' same time protect the interests of the people who have affordable housing. They would have the same opportunity of about 200 homes to have in that location. At the same time, there are residential within the next door neighbor which is not in the resort area. I think it will be a complement, not for the resort, but will be a complement to Platinum Triangle which is basically right across the freeway and I would support the way the exhibit A and B is described to change and keep this under the overlay zone but allow to have the residential on this particular piece of property and t he one on the Harbor and Chapman I think is going to be a true complement to have a five star hotel in the neighborhood. So this is how I feel, that is my proposal that I am ready to support: Mayor Pringle: Thank you. I tried to let every member and I know I interjected on a number of occasions but I want to make sure that I express my point of view that 1 am totally against 100 percent residential on this site. And let's talk about it, let's step back a little bit. First off, it is totally irrelevant, and there is a degree of relevancy Mr. Chavez, if, in fact you feel that you did not receive the information that you asked for. But it's irrelevant in terms of what the staff has done in trying to prepare itself to respond to fulfillment of a specific plan and in terms of looking at those and bringing forward reports or not. The bottom line is we have before us this modification of the general plan. if there are any other modifications to the general plan being proposed, it would be staffs 27 requirement to investigate and review those and come back to us with a staff report to reflect that. In this case, I just want to express my concern. First off the greatest jewel - -- in the economics of our city is the resort area. It has taken over ten years to get it established, this is the very best year ever in the history of Anaheim in terms of resort . area income. Yes, it has a lot to do with Disney's 50~' but today we see the development of a number of hotels that have been on the back burner, a development project specifically in GardenWalk, the contemplation of what to do with the 3'~ gate of Disney. Yes, there are pieces of property within the resort that are not at the highest and best use but I will tell you, every single one of them, including the 3`~ gate property.. of Disneyland could be developed into condos or apartments. Residential today makes money so every one of those options could happen 'rf we wish to drop the commitment we have in terms of maximizing the benefit of the resort. It's there. To Zook at the resort as it is today on this map before us, in fact the golden rod or whatever color that is, orange on the. right hand side, that is the freeway there, that is the entry point of the. resort. That is probably the prime entry point for our entire city in terms of the resort as you look at the amount of money that has been spent on Katella to really enhance that intersection and that entry point. To say that we would not look at every opportunity to figure out how to maximize the resort orientation and development on those sites, we should and all this proposal does is say that. I believe there is a potential for a resort hotel there but if there isn't , to the highest and best possible use that was originally designated, then this proposal allows for a smaller sized hotel to be there , a smaller. sized resort with a combination of residential, high end condominium potentially. The other entry into the resort is really the connectivity to Garden Grove. I think the city has overlooked shunning of our neighbor and in fact, figuring out: how to bridge the wall there and if one of those bridges could be a high level hotel, that's good. So the proposal right now talks about the entry point to the resort and I think that is significant to look at. I do think that to contemplate that we would change uses from hotel to residential would not have any effect on infrastructure, sewers and therefore some environmental impact, is just wrong. My friends we are looking, just on the other side of Katella, there are five developers breaking down the doors hoping they could develop. residential in the Platinum Triangle that is adjacent to the residential area but we are. holding up the wall. We are saying no you can't do it because there is a sewer shortage in that area. Like it or not in terms of movement into the Platinum Triangle or movement into the resort, there is a sewer limitation. And to say that a sewer hotel use is the exact same as a residential sewer use is not true, it's not. And in terms of the transportation infrastructure needs of 1,500 or 2,000 residential uses there versus 1,900 hotel rooms or even less; it's not the same. There is infrastructure limitations and what we did with the Platinum Triangle is trying to maximize what happens on the other side of the freeway with the knowledge of what's happening on the west side of the freeway. Let me just tell you of the Platinum Triangle. I hope every single one of builders that invested in Anaheim doesn't think we are turning our back and running away. The level of focus, the level of concentration of units and development was not done by accident, my friends. It was done specifically to try to maximize the amount of commercial development Anaheim Stadium and. to maximize the development of the Platinum Triangle. And what we are doing is we are sucking out units from that development. I don't know if anyone has read any papers in the last six weeks but there has been a 28 slow down in residential development. And in fact, we have done everything we have done to encourage the proliferation of development, encouraged in area that is specifically for residential development, maximizing the number of units in that area so we can maximize the development of the commercial area where you have walking' communities. That doesn't happen here so what you are doing is you are creating a direct competitor to the units that we have approved on the other side where people have spent a fortune in a district where in fact we have said this is where we want to maximize the number of units and then a few months later we talk about pulling .1,500 of those units out of that concentration. It will weaken the Platinum Triangle, it will harm that, the number of high density buildings will go down because of what we'll do by this action and in fact you won't have that level of concentration there and therefore you won't have that benefit and that type of commercial development we have sought. I really hope you look into what we are doing and what we could do affecting neighboring areas and neighboring property owners. I don't know if any of them were noticed, were they? The Platinum Triangle people who are banking on with their money also invested in buying a piece of property under a certain level of commitment that this city made when they told that in fact we could build 1,500 units. The newspaper told them today but I would be surprised if they really took it seriously, that we would contemplate pulling that many units out. I really hope before you take that step you just ask any one of those developers how sure they are that they could develop the types of projects they. brought before us and we all approved and in fact a few months later we are talking about siphoning out 1,500 units out of that pot of 9,500 units for this one project. You know, and let's just talk about affordability. I know that that is driving a lot of the discussion, okay? This developer has expressed a commitment to provide a 15 percent affordability which means that a lot of people get excited about that.. I get excited about those needs but let's be honest about that. If 1,500 units were built here according to what the newspaper. had to say, there is some degree of commitment of 15 percent or maybe 200 units, so you will take out 250 units and replace them with 1,500 units and get 200 units of affordability out of it. So in fact what I have heard is that there is a net reduction and tell me if I'm wrong but I specifically heard that and that's what 1 heard in the paper that there would be a 15 percent affordability component. So I see there is a reduction of affordable units and I don't necessarily see the commensurate net benefit or that net return. So that is the level of concern I have. I don't want to pull the plug on success in terms of where we are with the resort. I don't want to turn my back on the success of the Platinum Triangle. I don't want to misapply our commitment to affordable housing and take away affordable housing and not necessarily see a level of benefit. We talked about earlier today, in fact this whole discussion of an overlay zone; I believe some areas within that could receive the benefit of an overlay zone.. Some of those existing apartments, there could be that ability but I don't necessarily see providing in this fashion and turning our backs on the successes of the resort that are there. I know we have probably three things, therefore, we can consider and one is passing this general plan amendment the way that it is today which gives an opportunity for all of those in that area but doesn't mandate any of them. Another option would be to not pass it at all and reestablish or look at it again to figure out what other general plan options there are. The third option that some have suggested to maybe amend this; I know our city attorney has suggested that that is not what has been advertised 29 and cannot be presented, therefore, that could be something we could have a discussion about. Or, there could be a discussion if members of this council wish to do "` " it is to take out any of the parcels in this general plan amendment and allow those amendments to go on a separate course. In fact, pass this general plan in a smaller. fashion and reduce its overall size. But, I'm expressing my concerns to you and I know people want to quickly express why everything I said is wrong, I feel very committed as to why we need to stand with the vision this city has and hope that we receive the benefits of those plans. Mr. Chavez, you wanted to respond. Council Member Chavez: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I am not going to suggest that everything you said is wrong but I will tell you on a couple of points I do have a different point, okay? One is, on the issue of affordability based on what's there and what is being proposed by Mr. Eifend. The fact is that what is being proposed by the city is to put a hotel room and there would be no residential units there at all of any sort. Certainly, we would eliminate all 250 of the affordable units there now and just do away with them,. create a hotel and then a hotel that would exacerbate the problem by creating more service sector jobs. Nothing creates more service sector work than hotels. And they are low Paying Jobs, Mayor Pringle: So you are correcting me on what path? ; Council Member Chavez: I am not correcting you, sir. I am just stating a different opinion. Mayor Pringle: Service sector jobs are created by hotels. Council Member Chavez: Service sector jobs are created by hotels. You are suggesting that ,your point was that there is a net loss of affordable units. I'm suggesting the City of Anaheim is already taking out affordable units right now based on widening the road in the same spot. Well, there is no plan to replace them. Mayor Pringle: There is aplan to replace them. Council Member Chavez: I brought it up today, staff never even mentioned that. I had to remind them that that was part of the plan. Mayor Pringle: Just be cautious. I don't believe that anybody is trying to hide or duck from that obligation. Council Member Chavez: It's in the plan, sir. There's 10 points on the plan, it's easy to read. I'm very frustrated with this, Curt. I'll just be honest with you. Mayor Pringle: We had a full discussion earlier. Any reduction of affordable housing is going to be added to the bottom line of the requirement; you brought that up. i believe everyone believes that is part of the plan, That's not a question. But the question I would, though, is if this entire site were removed, that if the affordable housing on this 30 site were removed, not just that of Gene Autry but of all the units regardless of what was put there and that obligation, t believe goes onto the overall plan of 1,200 units over four years. So if there is an additional 250 unit requirement, those 250 I believe are still an obligation but the commitment on affordable housing was to add to the overall net ' benefit of the city in terms of affordable units. Council Member Chavez: And we have a developer who is willing to do 200 of those himself. I don't see any other developer coming into our citysaying we'll build you 200 units. That is not occurring. The other point l want to make is related to that site; I can't envision a W Dallas or Ritz Carlton at Haster/Katella overlooking 15 year old apartment. buildings that are existing there now. I can't see a big hotel come in and wanting to do business there, it just doesn't make sense to me. Quite frankly, I'm going to try to calm down here and make a recommendation. Honestly in the scheme of the whole thing. here, we've got a potential for awin/win. We've got a potential to increase hotel rooms on Harbor Boulevard; we've got a potential to increase the number of residential units and create some affordable units that the developer. themselves would pay for. I think that to adopt both works and that's what I would recommend. Council Member Hernandez: Well, there's two points that I'd like to make. Number 1, campaigned on a promise of trying to provide as much affordable housing in Anaheim. as possible and part of that promise was that I would never, ever require inclusionary housing. And that means forcing any contractor to provide an affordable component on any project. This is the first developer that has come to us and correct me if I'm wrong, but the first developer that has come to us and offered to do this voluntarily and without. a tax subsidy.. I have said this before I support Jamboree housing, Mercy Housing, Habitat for Humanity, the other group that Jimmy Gaston heads up, all of those : organizations come to us and i support them because they do their affordable housing., things and they do it thru redevelopment and there is a tax subsidy, tax credits attached. to that, and that's great -all provided for by the Federal government to assure that we elected at the city level provide that housing. Here we have a contract who is willing to do this voluntarily without a subsidy, I can't in good conscience turn away from that. The second point is that I want to make is that I hate to sound like a libertarian but the developer should be able to do with his property as he sees fit and that's one of the. basic premises of our constitution.. And this is what the developer want to do with his property, I think it is not unreasonable, I think he should be allow3ed to do that. Council Member Galloway: I have a question of Mr: Elfend. Council Member Hernandez said something that I haven't heard, that you are willing to do this project without absolutely no subsidy, I hadn't heard that. Is that true? Frank Elfend: Well, what I'll do is get Mr. Lou Feldman who is the architect of our .affordable housing program as it has several different components and he'll be able to answer that. :Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name. is Lou Feldman, I'm with Goodwin Proctor, we're a law firm in .Los Angeles and I specialize in affordable housing 31 as well as public infrastructure: I did for the City and for the developers the Park Vista project some years ago and had had the pleasure of working.with staff in the past. Thee project that is being brought before you does volunteer 15 percent of it to be affordable. And the concept of replacing housing which is a staff policy in this event would be augmented. To the extent there was a net loss there would be something that would have to be made up in order to fulfill the policy that you've announced this everiing. And that decision could be made through appropriate measures in the future as you enforce that. What we are proposing here which depends upon the amount of affordability that we can provide and still have a viable economic project. There is a certain amount of tension that exists, the deeper the affordability, the harder it is to make a project pencil,. the more than other technologies, financial technologies come into play including low income tax credits perhaps, including. monies from the $24 million that are set aside and must be used by your city in your housing trust funds. And those are policy decisions as to how that money must be used. There are also other subsidies that work for public financing vehicles that will be called subsidies but in effect they are not subsidies, such as Mello Roos .and communities facilities districts for infrastructure which is used by and large for private development. But the concept tonight: isn't to come before you and provide a specific vehicle and a specific approach. It is to tell you what we have been contemplating is deeply affordable product, 20 percent of it at 50 percent. of median income, the remainder at 60 percent of median income. This allows people who are service sector and working force, common people, not those who could afford to take a large amount of money out of the sale of a property as an empty. nester and go buy at the top of a luxury hotel. Not something, I'm doing the LA Live project'in downtown Los. Angeles for the _ Entertainment Group, I understand when you have a large hotel at the top of that hotel when it is condominium, it can also provide the economic impact necessary for the developer to have something pencil to attract investment, to attract pension funds, to attract private equity to make those deals work. I don't think what we are asking for here is something that replaces that. That is another complement, that is another type of housing: But with that housing and the kind of housing that my client is asking for there is the responsibility in the increasing environment of escalating. commodity and prices, of increasing dollars for travel, where people can't come in from out of town. They can't go to a job that pays them minimum wage or even an affordable wage and afford to pay $60 for free time travel between their home to take a job that , pays them $10 or $11 an hour. So the idea here is to create a discussion with staff, to come in with staff and create awin/win.. Provide the housing, use the technologies that exist whatever they may be, whether its tax increment funds, whether its low income housing tax credits, whether its communities facilities dist5ricts, whatever it takes to provide this housing on a sound economic basis. We are not saying we are asking for it but I will tell you that we'll probably ask for some win/win assistance in order to make this work. Again, the deeper the affordability, the greater the gap we would have in order to attract capital and make this viable. Mayor Pringle: Does that answer your qu3stions. Council Member Galloway: It brings up other things because when I hear pencil out, that's real negative to me. I keep hearing that from developers doing affordable or 32 developers period and this pencil out business to me means I don't know if I can do it. So, it scares me. Lou Feldman: We can do it. Council Member Galloway:. I just want to clarify then that basically this is not a project that will need a subsidy. Basically you are not, this isn't a gift the developer is saying., oh Anaheim , we won't need any of your help, we're going to give you 20 percent, we are looking at a request for subsidy:. However, I do have a question. Can we give any of that money for a project outside of the redevelopment agency? Because we don't do that, do we? Staff: That's a choice that we can make. Council Member Galloway: Okay, that's a choice that we can make. Mayor Pringle: Affordable housing funds can go anywhere with the jurisdiction. Well thank you. I want to make sure Mr. Hernandez heard that you do contemplate some sort of subsidy, state tax credits or other programs that the City has.. Lou Feldman: That's correct, sir. Mayor Pringle: And, what is the total acreage on the two mobile home sites? About 26ish, a little under 26. Thank you, Mr. Sidhu? Council Member Sidhu:. I've got a question for you. You know we are making a decision that you are promising 15 percent of affordable housing._ It concerns me that if you don't get enough subsidy, you're going to provide these affordable housing at higher level and affordable. in your books might be different at the time the project is approved. So I have some questions now that I need to know now before I vote on it. When you say 15 percent, 200 homes, I need to know whether you get subsidy or not. I need to know today what you are going to do because otherwise I am not convinced that the affordability is going to be there for the people, 250 people are going to be gone and if we don't have a low moderate way below then its not a workforce housing. These people are working for less than $16 an hour, making less than $30,000. For them, paying $800 a month rent will not work for me. I'm sorry but I need to know before I proceed further what is affordable, very easy term to say but we need to have that clarified before 1 decide to move forward. Lou Feldman: Understood:. Let me see if I can answer that quickly and succinctly. Low income housing tax credits, which would require that the project be affordable at 20 percent of 50 percent of median income in terms of qualifying residents, that's mandatory. Plus the city has an additional inclusionary requirement of anotherl0 percent, there's a 30 percent requirement per project in terms of fulfilling its 2003 request for 1200 units of affordable housing so there's a deeper commitment to that. An LITC, low income housing tax credit, is not a subsidy, that is the sale of the project into 33 the market place where the developer sells the project, holds onto the project and basically sells the losses of the project. Holds onto the project, carries it for 10 years and keeps it affordable. The low income housing tax credit alone may do this deal. It may work. That is our hope that it would work. If it doesn't work and there is an additional gap, we still can't build. We are promising 15 percent affordable housing,.we will give you 15 percent in affordable housing on this project and it will be hell or high water. Part of it's a tradeoff for getting our entitlement. Part of it is a need to make the transaction work. When we say pencil out, the idea is what we will need to do in order to attract the appropriate level of capital and optimize this financing to get the deepest level of affordability. Right now our plans are, 50 at 20 percent, and then the remainder at 60 percent of median income which means a family that makes less than $40,000 a year on a family of four, we will be obligated to have at least 20 percent for those folks, and those who make $60,000 a year, that will be the remainder of the project. We are talking about people who can go at that $6-$9 an hour. We can go at that. So we are committed to that. I am not saying that we need a specffic amount from the city but to the extent, we don't have a project in front of you but we should have a dialogue about how to do that. Council Member Sidhu: 'Here's my concern, Today, if we make a policy and you can't deliver based on what you are saying I'm sorry we did not get the tax credit, I did not get that. Lou Feldman: Then we wouldn't get the entitlement. Council Member Sidhu: Well. What I am saying, I want to make sure that if we go that route, to me it doesn't matter whether you get the tax credit or not, this for me, the project is based on 15 percent affordable housing for that particular number. That is what I am interested in. I am not interested in where you get the tax credit, whether you get it, it is a savings for you. " Lou Feldman: If vve get it, it makes the project work. `That is our issue. But there are requirements of the city. You have money which is available for affordable housing which you lose if you don't use and the question is what do you do with it: Is that notup for grabs? Do you use it here? Mayor Pringle: We use ithere. ' Lou Feldman: Do you use it here to its full extent? I don't know. If it's not available, it's not available. We understand that. But the idea isn't to end up in a situation arguing at this point as to what we'll do. We guarantee 15 percent affordable housing or we don't get to build our project. Council Member Sidhu: So, thaYs your number, 15 percent. Lou Feldman:' 15 percent affordable, which would be at least 30 percent of it at an affordable level which means people at 50 percent of the median income or below 34 would have 20 percent of those units and the rest of it, depending on the structure that we use, if it's low income housing tax credits.... Council Member Sidhu: No, no, no. See this is what, I'm sorry I am kind of confused here. When you say depending on this, I cannot go in this direction. I need to know.. what you going to give because I cannot go, if, no, it has to be either you are goirig to deliver that without any cost whether you get it or not, then I'm ready to vote on this project. Otherwise, to me it's no interest because I need to know what you .are going to deliver. If you are going to deliver that, don't give me "if'. I need to know yes we are going to do that no matter what whether we get the tax credits, whether we get other subsidy or not, or I'm sorry. I am not interested in that. I'm interested in you going to deliver it, 'rf that is what you are going to do without any attachment, I am willing to work with you, but otherwise, I just don't haye any interest because this particular project we are making an effort to accommodate that you are going to provide at 15 percent affordable housing for either low, low income or median low income, this is what I am interested in. And that's the reason it has tickled me to move in that direction, otherwise am not interested. We already have enough housing on the Platinum Triangle: The only reason I am doing this, I am going in that direction is that particular small piece. Lou Feldman: I understand: May I answer the question for you? Council Member Sidhu: Sure. Lou Feldman: We will give you 15 percent affordable housing regardless of what you give us. Council Member Chavez: Can I make a point, Mr: Mayor? Mayor Pringle: Yes. Are you done Mr. Sidhu? Council Member Chavez: It's my understanding that what we are doing here, this is a vehicle today to create a hotel and they are suggesting to create a residential project at 15 percent. Mr. Capaldi didn't come up and tell us for sure how much they are going to rent the units for, how many stories it's going to be: It's a vehicle for them to move forward to try to get financing for them Mr. Capaldi's project. And, this is also a vehicle for them to do to be able to commit, to be able to fulfill their commitment to do 15 percent. All it does it sets the wheels in motion so they can go out complete this, to talk to them to go out and get funding when they don't really know if they have the ability to build residential on this site. Mayor Pringle:. The challenge with that, Mc Chavez, is that Mc Capaldi is not asking us for anything. Council Member Chavez: Serious? I'm sorry 35 Mayor Pringle: Look, if we could, I want to beYespectful of your point of view. Mr. Sidhu's challenges, we are being asked, at least the contemplation which I don't think is legal and I want to have a discussion with our city attorney, that this general plan amendment has been moving through and advertised as one product, I don't believe we can change that product because it's never been advertised or promoted, If someone wishes to come forward with that in which there is a little more firmness as to what that proposal would include in terms of affordability. You complained earlier today, Mr. Chavez, that the CIM project is defined as affordable under stateaw was not good enough for you in terms of the level of affordability so when people present that 20 percent of the units of their affordable grouping shall be made of a certain category, didn't hear whether they would be very low orlow category; I just heard the 15 percent of the median income level:... Lou Feldman: It's very low Mayor Pringle: So, very low, but 20 percent would be there but you and I don't know what the rest of that product is so a part of that is; .shouldn't that be, do you not want some degree of certainty, if you are willing to change things, aren't you wanting some degree of certainty? Council Member Chavez: Sure Mayor Pringle: Therefore, the way you get certainty, you let it go through the process. You don't amend something which is not the vehicle by which that can be amended and guess that's my question to the city attorney. Where, how, we have one general plan amendment before us today, a lot of talk about making it something different, and even talking about a project that might be developed under the new plan which we don't know what the general plan amendment is nor do we know what the project looks like so that is why it's hard to nail anything down. Frank Elfend: Excuse me, could 1 have a point of order just to make one short clarification? Mayor Pringle: No, I would really like to have from our city attorney real quick an opportunity to hear what can we do, what can we do today under what is legal and advertised? Jack White, City Attorney: Actually what Council has before them, the only thing you have before you tonight is the application that's city-initiated to allow residential uses In conjunction with full service hotels and to amend the general plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to make that happen. That's the project you have in front of you. We heard considerable discussion about 1) that nobody apparently is opposed to that but at the same time, SunCal for site 3 is interested in a different overlay that would allow additional residential opportunities for their property. Now I'm not going to get into the policy decision behind that because clearly you can make that decision. It's not a question as to whether you can make that decision or can't make that decision. The 36 problem is you can't legally make that decision tonight because this was noticed only to allow residential uses in conjunction with hotels for tonight's hearing and tonight's amendment so none of the other property owners in this vicinity or the general public had any knowledge that this was going forward or being discussed tonight. You can cure that, obviously by renoticing. There is another problem that 1 want to address an_d with all due respect to SunCal and its consultants and attorneys, I don't agree and don't think our staff agrees and I know our environmental consultants don't agree that no additional environmental review is required for that because we believe it is. We< believe there is a fundamental difference in the environmental effects between hotels and residential products. It effects the sewer capacity, differently, effects traffic in peak hour traffic, and effects a variety of other environmentally related concerns in different ways and the staff and the city council needs the benefit of that analysis to know exactly what these effects would be and how to mitigate it if you are going ahead and approving anything other than what you have before you tonight. So, what you have in front of you tonight is the proposal as it currently exists to add this overlay that frankly there doesn't seem to be any opposition to and you've heard a lot of discussion about something different that can be done and if SunCal wants to propose that and Council wants it analyzed, it can certainly be done. We can bring it back to you, you can look at it, you can approve it, or reject it or do anything you want with it }ust in my view; you can't:. legally do that tonight. You need to have more environmental review, you certainly need to have it renoticed to make that happen and it sounds like you have other issues,. too, that need to be resolved to make members of the City Council comfortable in whatever decision you are going to make. Mayor Pringle: So, in fact, I don't know if any other member of the City Council has their light on, Mr. Chavez, you did? Council Member Chavez: Mr. Elfend wanted to make a point related to one of the questions that was asked and I'm curious as to what it may be. Frank Elfend: I'd like to make two points and one clarification of a comment made by the Mayor earlier today and that is, Mr. Mayor, you mayrecall that the City has removed or is removing 91 mobile homes for the Gene Autry Way project. Of course, the City does not own the land but they were in the process of relocating people on land that we currently own and there were several letters that have been sent to the city regarding that effort. So the actual loss of this particular project would be equivalent to what we are replacing so yourstatement earlier about this project replacing only 200 when in fact we were removing 250 is not correct because the city has already removed 91 and they are gone. And so they are gone. What is left is we will relocating? Mayor Pringle: And what is left, Mr. Elfend? Frank Elfend: I believe it's whatever is the difference between 250 minus 91. Mayor Pringle: Mr. Elfend, the point I was making was to reassure Mr. Chavez that I support his position in how we interpret the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 37 and that is when there are modifications or reduction of affordable units, that our. obligation, our internal obligation, not yours, goes up. Frank Elfend: I understand.. Mayor Pringie:: So, before you bought the property, there was a proposal on the Gene Autry bridge was there and we began to move forward on that, I don't know exactly what time along theprocess was SunCal's acquisition but I believe that at that moment in time we have an obligation under our strategic plan to address those units. Therefore the discussion has been that we are going to look to modifying our plan by 91 units and if, in fact, there's another 161 units that are reduced by your development on that site, be it a luxury hotel or a high rise condominium with affordable housing units. I believe we still, within the context of our plan, have to be consistent with that and look to find the affordable housingvnits to address that... Frank Elfend: I understand that. Secondarily, ih terms of the questions I've raised with Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Sidhu and Ms. Galloway as well, we are going to provide 15 percent affordable housing without any subsidy if we are not able to work out the differentials with the city. That's a commitment we can make. I think what Mr. Pringle said is true, and that is we are not presenting a specifiaproposal tonight: Neither was the other gentleman. We are simply asking you to include a provision that gives us the ability to present something to you in the future with real precision details that you would want although I don't want to feel that anyone has been misled because that is what we are going to do, Councilman Hernandez and Councilman Sidhu as well as Councilwoman Galloway. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Now, of course, Mr. White. and I have been around here for many, many years and I know when Mr. White speaks it's sort of like that old EF Hutton commercial, everyone sort of listens to what he has to say so I appreciate his opinion but I would only add to you that of course, if you review the documentation and for the moment consider our expert here of sorts, that some of the documentation says that it's evaluating residential land use and doesn't necessarily distinguish the differential nor, Mr. Mayor, the way the CEQA document is drafted, there is a functional equivalency, meaning that if there is any more impact that. what would be functionally equivalent for a hotel, you would require additional documentation, so there is no, sort of like, free ticket, on CEQA.. Mayor Pringle: You know, Mr. Elfend. I didn't bring up CEQA,1 brought up what was legally allowed to be before our council, so you have expressed your concern and response to Mr. White. Frank Elfend: Thank you. Mayor Pringle: Very good and you know, do we need more? Go ahead, I want to hear affordability and I think Disney would like to follow up and we'll get back to Mr. Capaldi and maybe we can keep the public hearing open 'til 12 o'clock. 38 Lou Feldman: I just want to give some specifics so that we are talking about numbers and that you can understand what we are proposing whether or not you give a subsidy, whether or not something is there. Okay? We'll take all that off the table. I want to assure you this is what we are proposing. Twenty of the units out of the 195 or 25 whatever the number is of those units will only be made available to those people, a family of four that earns $40,550 or les, so 20 of those units. The other 175 units will be made available for families of four that make $48,660 or less, that is what we are proposing specifically: Mayor Pringle: Thank you sir. Therefore, what is being presented just so you know, is the discussion the staff has been having for the last year regarding how to create an affordable housing overlay zone and they are looking to do that. Just what's happening in this regard but not necessarily in the resort. Mr. Lowe has been trying to get attention, I don't know what more though needs to be added. If there's something specific, we were talking specifically, I guess a request you may not have heard. completely but is there anything really specifically to be added? Chris Lowe: Nothing specific to this individual development but I would just ask the consideration of this council as representing one of th a largest landowners adjacent tot. his property ,we've been following staff and their proposals for the overlays for quite some time. We've had several internal meetings. A little bit discomfort in terms of what the intentions of Council are tonight in terms of approving a specific product. At this. council meeting, I certain understand and respect the. comments on the need for affordable housing and have participated in the workshop and certainly appreciated all the good work this council has directed staff to do, but what I would like is a fair look at this project. It sounds like a lot of the components as it relates to the most critical issue that we are discussing tonight, affordable housing, are kind of happening here at the , podium. A lot of things they are trying to pencil and I think there's a level of discomfort. on my part because we did not have an opportunity at the Planning Commission level at several different levels that our. outlined by your ordinance to participate in this so I would hope that we are invited to have this discussion and seriously look at and bring comment to bear on the viability of 100 percent residential development on this site, because I truly believe as I stated in my comments earlier and I know I represent the Disney Corporation that if you look on all sides of this development, it's ripe fore. opportunity. You have the GardenWalk project that is a block away, you have the third. site opportunity that is adjacent, and you have a very'vibrant and exciting Platinum Triangle so I would ask that you provide us an opportunity as one of,the most significant land owners adjacent to this development to have our due course and present our findings to the Planning Commission and ultimately to you as decision makers. Mayor Pringle: Very good, thank you. Our city attorney says we have opportunity to .address the general plan amendment that is before us today. We can address that as it is. We can reduce its scope, thereby taking property out of it if we wish. Our city , attorney has expressed his opinion that we cannot expand its scope into an area that has not been advertised and shared wifh others. We can also direct staff to take action 39 or work with others or to come back with a proposal in some fashion. Those are things that are available to us, what is the pleasure of the council? - Council Member Chavez: Obviously we need more clarity on the legal sides of this . based on Mr. White's opinion. I would recommend that we table this or continue it and come back with some recommendations at the next council meeting as to how we should handle this thing. There's a motion, is there a second. Okay, motion by Chavez, second by Hernandez, which is not to table it but to continue it to our next meeting. I've just expressed that I am concerned about taking that action. You are telling others that have been walking the path, following exactly this procedure and in fact, you are telling them that they must wait another month or two before we take action. Mr. White, could I ask one quick question and that would be, if there was a modification as has been referenced to this general plan amendment, can that be done next meeting? Or, are you suggesting that it is a requirement for that degree of modification to be heard by the Planning Commission, to be readvertised or what are you saying has to be done if that in fact was before this council? Jack White: The way you should proceed, in my opinion, is the council could certainly take action tonight, if you choose, on what's before you as we previously indicated which is residential uses in conjunction with full service hotel. If you want to take action on that, you certainly can do that. If you want to take property out of that overlay, you can tonight. If, on the other hand, you want to try to change the general plan. amendment and change the specific plan to add in an additional an additional overlay, which is what I heard has been suggested by the owner of Site 3, the Diamond Point. property, that is going to require, in my opinion, renoticing and additional environmental review. Instead of that review, I can't tell you tonight because I don't know that much about what's being proposed and in fact, I'm not sure, I've heard different things during the course of the discussion, but that needs to be reviewed what's adequate because the city ultimately has the responsibility of environmental, not the project applicant, to present a legally adequate environmental review for council to consider. Mayor Pringle: Very good, I thihk everybody hears what you have to say. So there is a motion before us to continue this item to our next regularly schedule meeting which is September 12~'. There's a motion and a second, any further discussion. Yes, Mc Chavez? Council Member Chavez: Okay, if we were to continue this, what would be different when we come back. You would just make the same recommendation again? Jack White: If we are going to be here three weeks from now, legally you are not going to hear anything different from me. Council Member Chavez: Okay, then another question. It appears to me, listening to the majority of this council speaks, that the majority of council is interested in the type of project that is being proposed on the site adjacent to the freeway there at Haster. What would you recommend? 40 Jack White: Two things come to me. One way is that: the applicant can initiate an amendment to the general plan and the specific plan to have that happen and the other is the council can direct staff to initiate that change: It can happen either way. And; maybe the difference is if there's additional environmental review that has to be done, the cost associated with that either is going to be borne by the property owner or by the city, one of the two. That's basically the options that you have. Council Member Chavez: How do we initiate an amendment to that? Do I just make a motion to do that? Jack White: You cah make a motion if you choose, in addition to what you have in front of you which is the existing general plan amendment and specific plan amendment relating to full service hotel residential overlay. That you can definitely approve tonight and in addition to that, you can make a motion to initiate review by city staff for an amendment to accomplish what SunCal is suggesting they want to accomplish or they can do that without the council even doing that. Mayor Pringle: So, would you like to make a different motion. Council Member Chavez: l think I would like to withdraw my motion. Mayor Pringle: All right, is there an objection to that Mr. Hernandez? Inaudible comment Council Member Chavez: Okay, and to make a motion in which we would ask this council to amend this plan to allow for this type of development to occur and at the same time approve the overlay that is being recommended. Mayor Pringle: So, your motion is to approve the overlay and at the same time direct staff to initiate action whereby a general plan amendment would be developed to, you know the language, don't you, to allow for strictly residential don this site as was referenced in the documents as presented here today. Motion by Mr. Chavez, is there a second. Was that you Mr. Hernandez. Motion and second, please vote. Sheryll Schroeder, City Clerk, reads the following: MOTION: Find and determine that the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b are adequate to serve as the required. environmental documentation for the following proposed amendments. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 0085b, FOR AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO 41 THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (THE ANAHEIM RESORT RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) AND DETERMINING THEIR ADEQUACY TO SERVE AS THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS. RESOLUTION NO: 2006-206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00442, PERTAINING TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT. ORDINANCE NO. 6036 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5453, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, AND AMENDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.116 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.. RoII Call vote: Ayes - 4: Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 1: Mayor Pringle. Motion Carried. Mayor Pringle: Very good, yes Mr. Sidhu. Council Member Sidhu: I have one comment to make. Early on in the comments I was making, I want to make sure that I get some kind of written report on some of the issues that concerned me on how some of the reports were changing and some kind of, internal report from the city attorney's office to give me detail on what really happened, what forces made this report change from June to July 2005 Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager: Council Member Sidhu, it would be appropriate for the City Manager's office to give you that report and to look at what was originally submitted in a draft format and what additional information was submitted and why that. change was made and we'll report to you directly. Mayor Pringle; Right, very good Respectfully submitted, Interim City Clerk ~/ 42 ATTACPIlVIENT E Letters Received in Opposition to the Proposed Amendments Attachment E is provided to Planning Commission only. The above documents are on file in the Planning Department and are available for public review during normal business hours. I am writing to you in reference to my concerns over the proposal to build residential housing inside the Anaheim Resort district. Asa Best Western business entrepreneur in the Tourism Industry. , I strongly encourage Anaheim Inn the City of Anaheim to support the original vision of the Anaheim 1630 s. Harbor BNtl. Resort district. Anane~,, CA 92802 R14) n4.1650 FAX (T14) n6•fi365 The Anaheim Resort District was a well thought-out, planned development area with speck needs for Guests from around the Best Western world. Any decision that might violate the original intended zoning Park Place Inn & restrictions of the Resort District could have ne ative copse uences Mini-Suites 9 9 1544 5. Harbor BNd for both the businesses and residents alike. Mane9n, cA 9zaoz plalns•aeoo FAX (114) 758-1396 The City of Anaheim with Disney's guarantee borrowed $500 Million to create the Anaheim Resort. In addition, the local businesses in the Best Western Resort voted for and implemented aself-assessment tax specifically Pavilions intended to aid in maintaining the Resort's integrity and we don't want 1ti~~ ~KCa9z of to see it jeopardized. FAZ1(iiajn~ssol Having a district entirely dedicated to Tourism creates aWorld-Class Best Western destination that is specifically designed to provide for the needs of Stovall's Inn visitors from around the world. The success of this plan has had 1110 W. Xatella Ave. incredible results including the doubling of Transit Occupancy Tax ~(ilgii~lseoz revenues, which have jumped from $33 million to $70 million in the last FAXQ74)nfi•39os decade. It also supports tens of thousands of .jobs throughout the Mem6eto{ resort district. PcMAlBCIAAl HBMAI ASAE /TIA I MAI MPI! PATA It would be shortsighted to compromise the vision of the Anaheim °~'T~ Resort DIStrICt. For ReservationsC~l 1.800.854.8175 Respee~ urs~ , ~4~i 01aE$G',hl zt6L 9.~'~~t ra"ca~. Mr. William O'Connell Co-owner (vrJV 2 2 2006 Best Western Stovall's Hotels of Anaheim sa p c ~ ~ 16-15-06 16:51am From-City of ARahalm/City Mar. DATE: TO: FROM: 714 765 51.64 CITY OF ANAI-~~IM ®FFICE ®F' 'TIE MA'Y'OR ANI~ CITY COIDIeTCIIJ T-T62 P.001/002 F-956 CNRT PRINGLE, Mayor RICHARD DHAUEZ, MayorPro Tem BDB HERNAND¢, Counril Member LDRRI GALLOWAY, Council Member HARRY 5. SInHq; P. E., Council Member ~~ FAQ: Sz ~~ 1~~c ~ ~.~ SUE RAY, COUNCIL SERVICES COORATNATOR SlJ$11ECT: COMMENTS: 2W South Anaheim ]3ou)e~erd. Anaheim, Cta]ifornia 92805 (714) 7655247 • FAX (774) 765-5764 • www.anaheim.net 16-13-06 10:61am From-City of Anaheim/City Mgr. 714 T65 5164 T-T62 P.'D02/0:02 F-D5D cr F-I October 9, 2006 Mayor Curt Pringle City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92505 Dear Mayor Pringle, .s I have become aware of the attempt to alter the original vision of the Anaheim Resort Area to allow residential development, I am very concerned that the City Council is even considering such a fundamental change to this important economic engine. With more than half of the general revenue for the City coming from the taxes that are paid by the tourists, conventioneers and other visitors, I am hard pressed to underskand why the City would even consider making a change. The needs of visitors to the Anaheim Resort Area are very different from the needs of the city's residents. Visitors often stay out late and can he noisy, which is in conflict with the residents who are living their daily lives, including going to work and school and deserve to Ilve in quiet neighborhoods, This Is a very serious matter and 1 trust that you and the City Council will stay the course .and not change the vision of the Anaheim Resort Area.. There is st111 much more growth that can happen within this zone to reinforce its stature as a world class resort destination, Fred Brown General Manager, Desert Palms Hotel 8 Suites - Director of Operations, Hansji Hotels, Inc. Cc Mayor Pro Tem Richard Chavez Councilman Harry Sidhu Councilwoman Lorci Galloway Councilman Bob Hernandez 631 West Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802 tel.714535-1 1 33 vuww,desertpaimshotel.cnm fax.719-491-7409 Kilt®n ; ; Anaheim ~, P~ee~`~~E 'r.. ~p~h~NiMe®... ~: Harotd Rapoza `."+ \~,o, Hotel Manager ~~Ij/1.070.L ~~~ October 3, 2006 Mayor Curt Pringle City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevazd Anaheim, CA 92805 Deaz Mayor Pringle, On behalf of the Hilton Anaheim, I am writing to you to express our opposition to an issue currently before the council. As a business that operates in the Anaheim Resort Area, we are obviously greatly concerned with area development. While we aze excited and encouraged by the "Platinum Triangle" and other improvement projects currently in the works, it has come to our attention that a proposal to build high-density housing within the Anaheim Resort Area is now on the table. We would like to state emphatically that the Hilton Anaheim strongly opposes these plans. While we do not refute the need for more quality housing in Anaheim, we feel the proposed area is __ . ---_extrerrlotyinappropriatefor~resid __ _----- The Anaheim Resort Area was named as such because it is exactly that - a resort area that was established to cater to the needs of tourists and convention attendees and those who serve them, NOT those of permanent residents. We strongly believe merging these two very different populations in such close proximity would adversely affect our business in the long run. I have had conversations with several other property managers on this matter and we aze all in agreement that this is a bad idea. Please stay true to the original vision for the Anaheim Resort Area and drop these plans immediately. Sincerely, (~ C~~~4~~ 5~~6~~ I-IR/~f e ~` cfiu~~l 7i7 Convention Wav, ilnaheim, du1 9~8U'l•3497 Tel: +i 714 i4U 4331 Fax: +1 714 i4U 446U Reaervations:.,we:hilton.com or 1-BOU-HILTOtiS ~A~.-~~ 10-04-06 09:16am From-City of Anaheim/City Irter. „~~M Pi Y tltf _Ol+. ~ F ~Fy- ~T.. ~... .' ..t.O/,ry0~:0.~?. 714 795 6164 T-720 P.001/003 f-626 Fax Cover Sheet To: Sheri Vander Dussen ~: 5280 Shirley Rosales From: Lorinda Date: Wednesday, ORober 04, 2006 Dept CoundlOfnces Pages 3 Phone: 714.765.5247 Fau: 714.7fi5.5164 Re: FYI -Anaheim OC Hotel & Lodg(ng Assoc. C[: Message Please review the attached letter and inform council offices of your response. Thank you, Lorinda Z00 S. AnaheJm 61vd. Anaheim, CA 92805 TEL' 714.765.5162 FAX: 714.765.5164 10-04-06 OB:I6am From-City of Anaheim/City Har: T14 765 5164 T-TZO P.002/003 F-826 September 28, 2006 Mayor Curt .Pringle 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear Mayor Pringle and Anaheim City Council, On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Anaheim/Orange County Hote[ Association ... an organization that represents the largest number of employees in the City of Anaheim ,..; I am writing to request your support in preserving the strength and vitality o#'.'tfi~Anaheim resort district by limiting the attempts of developers to build Tiqusing within the district. ('~S' • {'. The revitalization of~:central Anaheim over the last 12 years has been truly remarkable. The tree-lined boulevards, enhanced architectural design of the city's hotels, restaurants.and retail venues, and grov~ing public transportation system have created an environment perfect for vacationing families and convention participants to enjoy during their visits. Indeed, the dining, shopping and entertainment enhancements that now call the Anaheim resort district home have positioned the city as the premiere tourist destination on the West Coast. The success of the Anaheim resort district, and the resulting benefits to residents throughout the City of Anaheim, is due in large part to the forward-thinking vision of the City's elected leaders and area planning commissioners. In partnering with local community members and business leaders to design an area expressly intended for travel and tourism activity, Anaheim not only encouraged local businesses to expand their presence and operations, but also fostered a'"destination hub" that has now become the heart of tourism and economic activity in Orange County. Additionally, there are now more than 80,000 jobs in the Anaheim Resort Area, representing the largest employment base in the City. We want to continue attracting millions of Guests to the Anaheim Resort Area so that we can continue growing the number of jobs available there. ss55 ~ 7.OOfi WVe 16-04-06 09:16am ` From-CItY of Anaheim/City I~aC. 714 7fi5 5164 T-720 P.063/003 F-326 Preserving the resort district and the vision from which it was originally founded is critical to the continued success of the hotel community, restaurants, theme parks and other entertainment venues. We commend you on your continued support of residents and business owners in Anaheim, and ask that you continue to support sound business .and residential planning in the city by limiting the expansion of residential housing into the Anaheim resort distdct. Sincerely, ~~~ B1115nyder President Anaheim /Orange County Hotel Association .,~.A Orange County Associates, Inc.. The Georgetown Building 250 North Golden Circle, Suite 217. General Partners and Asset Managers of: Santa Ana, California 92705 Daniel J. Scinto III, President Chapwood, L.P. 714-972-9923 and Chief Executive Officer. Manualoha, J.V. 714-972-9902 Fax Raymer Business Park, L.P. The Georgetown Building„ L.P. _lCti ~i. ti 1`'t5%~: The Katella Center, L.P. ~°' ` `~ ~'~ to //` Westminster Commercial Center, L.fl "' ~,i ~ , t`~~ p~2A~PJ IVG \~.:` llE; NfiA::Yr `` ~' November 6, 2006 ` ~ Mayor Curt Pringle Anaheim City Council Anaheim City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear Mayor Pringle: It is our understanding that the City of Anaheim is considering a low cost housing project in the Disney Resort area. Our company would also be interested in having an opportunity to develop part or all of this area. If possible,. please keep us informed of the City's position on its plans for the development of the potential low cost Housing project, or any other development opportunity in your city. We would like to state our opinion at this time (and we our planning on only giving you our opinion regarding this proposed development one time). It is not a good use of the Disney Resort area to put in low cost housing. It seems to us, that the Disney Resort area should be exactly that. That is a "resort area". It seems to us that it does not make much sense to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Regardless of what you do, please try to keep us informed of the progress if passible so we can try to participate in that development. n C--~ITaniel J. Scinto resident of Orange Co Associates, Inc. c: clrr caulvcil_ ~'~ ~ 1 ~~ S>d tl N 11Sm ~~`~B~ N~V 13 20Qo CIT1` of RNAHEIM 714_765-4086_. ©ct 5 '06 9:02 P. 01 CITY OF ANAHEIM ®~~F``FICE77~~77++OF THyygyE MESAYOR ~1V~ CAAY ~OIJ J.tl~IL DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMENTS: CURT PRINGLE,'Magor RICHAFiO ~CHAVQ. Mayot4ro'Tem , :.808 HEANA.NOEZ. CounciPMember LOARI GALLOWAY,-CCUncil Member HARRY 5; SIDHU, P.'E..'COUnciPMambef 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Anaheim, California 92805 , . (7741 765.5247 • FAX (714) 7ti5.5164 • www.anahcim~net ~ ~ ~' SUE RAY, COUNCIL SERVICES CC CIT'f of RNRHEIh1 Fax:714-765-4086 Oct 5 '06 9:03 P. 02 PEACOCK SUITES Shell Hospitality, Inc, Mana~°ing to Make a Difference The Honorable Mayor Pringle City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, Ca 92805 Dear Mayor Pringle ....... Please consider this letter as you and your fellow council members decide on the proposed residential development intended for the Anaheim Resort District. As a member of the ,Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Anaheim Convention Bureau, Represenffitive of the Tourism Industry, and a concerned resident. I would like fo bring several concerns to your attention that you may have forgotten or overlooked. I am, confident that you, are well aware that tourismi in the Anaheim Resort District brings in billions of dollars of eeonpzriic activitieswhicls'~supports tens of thousands of jobs and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. It is the tour`isiir industry that has spearheaded'this gmwth and development of the Anaheim Resort District. - The tourism industry continues to grow and it is more important tliaa e7ier before that we ma;nM;n the integrity and prosperity of the Resort District, keeping the original?iiitei3tions of the area and making" Anaheim a world class vacation destination for millions o£ visitors: every year. I believe the purpose of the Resort District was to provide a critical~~&ss'of tourism business, which in tum " will generate talc revenues for the city and its continued growth. 'I believed it was not for the"Resort District, the City of Anaheim would be stcvggling for money to pay for the.services of law enforcement, fire protection and maintain our beautiful streets and parks., ~ ' ~' " __ „ W~a~t'gigg_yQUtQStic~to the original vision of the Resort District.tliat.is.in_the..besi interest, o£our visitors and residents alike. sincerely, Steven C.F era General Manager F'eacack Suites Resort -OCT::O 4~ 7~:i~,.:. . Cc: Richard„Chavez-Mayor Pro Tam Bob Iiernenrlez-Couneil' Member ~~ :..: ~~~::., ~I,om Cralloway-Council Member ~ ~ - ~ . . Harry. Sidhu=Council Member 1745 S. Anaheim Blvd,, Anaheim, CA 92805 ° (714) 535-8255 ^ Fa7c (714).535-8914 k t rt websrte. www_peacoc sm esreso .tom