PC 2022/01/19
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Natalie Meeks
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Dave Vadodaria
• Commissioners: Lucille Kring, LuisAndres Perez, Steve White, Phillip
Wolfgramm, David Heywood
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Roll Call
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report
is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday,
January 13, 2022, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the
Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt
from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning and
Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California,
during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
January 19, 2022
Page 2 of 4
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
January 19, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00002, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06109, AND MIS2021-00776
(DEV2020-00287):
Location: 1807-1837 South Market Street
Request: A mixed-use project with 270-residential
dwelling units (for rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground
floor commercial space with 505 square feet of accessory
outdoor dining space; a Conditional Use Permit to allow
for ground-mounted utility facilities within the East Katella
Avenue structural setback; and a modification to the
Ground Floor Use Diagram of the approved A-Town
Master Site Plan.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether the previously certified Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Lisandro Orozco
LOrozco@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00003 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06113
(DEV2020-00288):
Location: 1820 South Metro Drive
Request: A multiple-family development with 257-
residential dwelling units (for rent) and a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the transfer of 40 residential units from
various Development Areas within the A-Town Metro
Project to the subject property.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether the previously certified Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Lisandro Orozco
LOrozco@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, February 14, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
January 19, 2022
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
2 p.m. January 13, 2022 (TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: _____________________________
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin
in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation
thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids
or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person
at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later
than 8:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos
los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación,
ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en
persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139,
antes de las 8:00 de la mañana un día hábil antes de la reunión programada.
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 19, 2022
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00002;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06109; AND
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2021-00776
(DEV2020-00287)
LOCATION: The subject property is approximately 3.2 acres, located at 1807-
1837 South Market Street at the southwest corner of East Katella Avenue and South
Market Street (A-Town Development Area B).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is PT
Metro, LLC represented by Paul Ogier, and the agent is Ted Frattone from Hunsaker
and Associates.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a final site plan to construct a mixed-
use project with 270 residential dwelling units (for-rent) and 22,174 square feet of
ground floor commercial space in Development Area B of the Lennar A-Town
development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone; approval of
a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow ground-mounted utility facilities to be located
within the Katella Avenue structural setback area; and a minor modification to the
Ground Floor Use Diagram for Development Area B of the approved A-Town Master
Site Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions and the minor modification, determining that the previously
certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request, and approving Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109.
BACKGROUND: The 43.1-acre A-Town Metro Project (A-Town) site is located in
the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates this
property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The property is surrounded by multi-
family and commercial uses to the north across Katella Avenue; industrial, office,
residential and commercial uses to the east; residential property to the south across
Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. A-Town was originally approved
by the City Council on October 25, 2005.
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 2 of 10
The project was revised and subsequently approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. The
revised project permits development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and between
38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets
within the eight Development Areas. Final site plans for three of the eight A-Town Development
Areas have been approved by the Planning Commission in recent years, with one Development
Area completed and two under construction. Two additional Development Areas, including the
3.2-acre Development Area B as described in this report, are presented for Planning Commission
review at this meeting, and three additional Development Areas will be presented to the Planning
Commission for review at a future date.
A-Town Infrastructure Development
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct the third phase of the A-Town development
in Development Area B with a mixed-use structure. The proposed structure will consist of eight-
levels, with one subterranean level and seven levels above grade. The structure will include 270
residential dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground floor commercial space
with 505 square feet of accessory outdoor dining space. The number of residential units and
commercial floor space is consistent with the development allocation for Development Area B of
the A-town Master Site plan of 165 to 281 residential dwelling units and 21,000 to 25,000 square
feet of commercial floor space. The project will have a residential density of 82 dwelling units
per acre, consistent with the development allocation of 50 to 85 dwelling units per acre for
Development Area B of the A-Town Master Site Plan. The project will include ground-floor
residential units along Westside Drive and Meridian Street. The project’s ground-floor
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 3 of 10
commercial space will consist of a 16,163 square foot market at the corner of Market Street and
Katella Avenue and three, inline, commercial tenant spaces along Market Street. Residential
dwelling units will range in size from approximately 724 square feet to 1,341 square feet. The
proposed residential unit mix consists of 168 one-bedroom units and 102 two-bedroom units.
Development Area B - Final Site Plan
The project will provide 607 parking spaces within the podium base in three levels: one level
underground, one level at grade, and one level above grade. Vehicles will access the parking
spaces for the market and the commercial tenants from a driveway on Market Street,
approximately 350 feet south of Katella Avenue and the driveway will provide access to ground
level parking spaces. Vehicular access for the residents will be located on Meridian Street in two
driveways. The first residential driveway will be located near Market Street and will provide
access for residents and guests to parking spaces on the third level of the parking structure. The
second residential driveway will be located near Westside Drive and will provide access for
residents to parking spaces in the subterranean level of the parking structure. The applicant is
proposing a loading dock with vehicular access on Westside Drive, approximately 70 feet south
of East Katella Avenue to serve the market.
The project includes street-level articulation along all four street frontages, and a variety of
materials and building articulation. Materials proposed include wood fiber-cement board, metal
panels, commercial storefront glazing, and stucco in a variety of colors. The project design
locates the largest massing along Katella Avenue and Market Street with a maximum height of
86 feet. The applicant is proposing smaller intermediate massing along Westside Drive and
Meridian Street.
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 4 of 10
The proposed project includes ground-mounted utility facilities within the Katella Avenue
structural setback. These facilities include an electrical transformer, fire department connections,
and double detector checks for water supply. The PTMU Overlay Zone allows modifications to
these setback requirements through the approval of a CUP. Staff further describes and analyzes
this request in the “Findings and Analysis” section of this staff report.
Rendering at East Katella Avenue and South Market Street
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Master Site Plan: The City Council approved the A-Town Master Site Plan in 2015 in conjunction
with its approval of the amended and restated development agreement. The Master Site Plan
established eight Development Areas (A through H) in the plan. The Code requires review and
approval of final site plans to implement the individual mixed-use or residential projects within
each Development Area of the Master Site Plan. The Planning Commission must review and
approve these final site plans at noticed public hearings prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Master Site Plan includes a minimum and maximum development range for the build-out of
the A-Town Metro project. This range allows the development of a minimum of 1,400 residential
units and a maximum of 1,746 residential units within the eight Development Areas. Each
Development Area has a target density range for the minimum and maximum number of residential
units permitted. Each Development Area can develop within that density range, provided the total
units in the Master Site Plan does not go below the minimum or above the maximum number of
units. The density range for Area B is 165-281 dwelling units. The proposed project (270 units)
is within this density range.
Parking: Parking for the proposed project will comply with the Code requirements for that were
in place at the time the Council approved the development agreement for the A-Town Master
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 5 of 10
Site Plan. The Code at that time required a minimum of 456 parking spaces for the residential
units, and the project will provide 466 residential parking spaces. The Code requires a minimum
of 137 parking spaces for the proposed 22,174 square feet of commercial space, and the project
will provide 141 commercial parking spaces.
The City Council has subsequently adopted higher parking requirements for the Platinum Triangle
that are consistent with the parking requirements for multi-family housing throughout the City;
however, the approved development agreement “locks in” the Code requirements in place at the
time of the approval of the development agreement.
Final Site Plan: Before the Planning Commission may approve a final site plan application, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan,
any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials,
texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained;
and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed final site plan was designed to be consistent with the General Plan, the PTMLUP,
the PTMU Overlay Zone, and the A-Town Master Site Plan. The project's site design incorporates
the following features to comply with the design standards of the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay
Zone and the A-Town Master Site Plan and to provide a vibrant walkable community with high
quality landscaping and architecture:
• The proposed project includes a market at the corner of Katella Avenue and Market Street
as well as additional inline commercial space along Market Street that will serve to activate
the street frontage and provide services and amenities within walking distance to local
residents.
• The proposed project provides an enhanced pedestrian realm along Market Street. The
project includes various layers of landscaping, including pots, built up planters, and in
ground plantings. The building wall at street level includes an enhanced stucco finish,
storefront glazing, metal canopies, and enhanced materials on solid walls. In addition, the
commercial spaces provide outdoor dining space that will further activate the street to
create a vibrant, urban, and walkable environment.
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 6 of 10
• The proposed project will provide three areas with amenities for the residents of the
building to enjoy active recreation and a space to host parties as well as informal gatherings.
The first area is a recreation courtyard in the center of the project with a pool, spa, sun
deck, co-working space, and a clubroom. The second area is a rooftop deck overlooking
Aloe Greens Park that will include a fire pit, seating areas, and amenity space with views
of The Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort. The third area is an indoor fitness space
on the ground floor at the corner of Katella Avenue and Westside Drive. In addition, the
project will include a pet spa for use by residents of this building.
• Enhanced lighting along Market Street will serve to highlight the commercial uses along
the ground floor and encourage activation of the sidewalk during the night. This will
include up lighting for the Date Palms along the sidewalk that will complement existing
lighting along Katella Avenue and string-lights over the sidewalk adjacent to the inline
commercial spaces.
• The enhanced building elevation at the corner of Katella Avenue and Market Street will
frame the street intersection and serve as an entry monument for the A-Town community.
The building at this corner will include floor to ceiling windows for the residential units
between the second and fifth floors, enhanced horizontal siding, and the primary entrance
to the market with storefront glazing along the ground floor. In addition, the project
includes a distinct building massing that frames the west end of Aloe Greens Park along
the south end of Market Street.
The layout of the development is compatible with the street configuration of the A-Town Master
Site Plan and with the adjacent residential to the south and west and future residential properties
to the east. The project's contemporary architectural style is compatible with the surrounding
environment and development, while distinguishing the site with its own unique features to create
a sense of place within the Platinum Triangle. Staff believes that this apartment project would not
interfere with the use or enjoyment of the neighboring and would create a desirable urban
environment for the residents by providing commercial amenities within walking distance for
nearby residents. For these reasons staff recommends approval of the final site plan.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow ground-mounted utility facilities to
be located within the Katella Avenue structural setback. These facilities include an electrical
transformer, fire department connections, and double detector checks for water supply. The Code
requires a minimum structural setback along Katella Avenue of 18 feet. The applicant is proposing
to locate the utility facilities a minimum of five feet from the property line.
Before the Planning Commission may approve a CUP, it must make a finding of fact that the
evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a CUP is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 7 of 10
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular
area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the CUP under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Additionally, pursuant to Code section 18.20.090.050 (Modifications) the approval of a
modification to prescribed setbacks requires the following finding of fact:
1) The proposed use meets the minimum landscape requirements.
The following figure depicts the proposed modification with the devices boxed in red and the 18-
foot structural setback depicted in green:
Setback Modification at Katella Avenue
In accordance with the required findings for a CUP, staff believes that the proposed utility
encroachments would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, as the encroachments are not
adjacent an existing building and will be heavily landscaped and screened from view. Locating
the utility facilities along Katella Avenue allows for the full development of the site and would
not be detrimental to the health or safety of the residents. The utility encroachments would not
have any effect on the traffic generated by the proposed project and would not impose a burden
on the streets in the development. Staff believes that the proposed utility encroachments would
further the objectives of the PTMU Overlay Zone by locating large utility devices away from the
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 8 of 10
primary pedestrian frontage along Market Street, which further contributes to an attractive and
walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity along the frontage of the
proposed commercial spaces without the obstruction of utility facilities.
The following figure depicts the enhanced landscaping that will screen the utility facilities along
Katella Avenue:
Katella Avenue Landscape Elevation
The Code requires that the area between the utility facilities and the sidewalk be fully landscaped.
The plans indicate enhanced landscaping between the utility facilities and the sidewalk as required
by Code. The finding can be made that the proposed use meets the minimum landscape
requirements. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Miscellaneous Case Permit (MIS): The applicant is requesting minor modifications to the Ground
Floor Use Diagram for Development Area B of the approved A-Town Master Site Plan. Subsection
.020 (Minor Amendments) of Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of the Code
states that minor amendments require Planning Commission or Planning Director consideration to
determine whether the amendment is in substantial conformance with the use and/or the plans that
were originally approved. Such review authority may approve in whole or in part, conditionally
approve, or deny the amendment. Minor amendments do not require a public hearing, unless the
review authority determines, at its discretion, that a public hearing is appropriate. As this request
is associated with the final site plan and conditional use permit before the Planning Commission,
Staff determined that the Planning Commission is the proper review authority for this request.
The following findings are required:
1) The underlying zoning and the General Plan land use designation for the area in
which the amendment is proposed have not changed significantly since the permit
was originally approved;
2) No new waivers of code requirements are needed;
3) The conditions of approval are not proposed to be substituted or amended, except the
substitution or modification to the conditions of approval of a permit previously
approved when a written finding is made that the substitute or amended conditions are
equivalent or more effective;
4) No substantive changes to the approved site plan are proposed; and
5) The nature of the approved use is not significantly changed;
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 9 of 10
6) The approved use is not intensified; and
7) No new or substantially greater environmental impacts would result.
The first modification proposed is to replace commercial retail/restaurant space at the southeast
corner of the Development Area with residential amenity space that will accommodate the leasing
office for the proposed project. The second modification is to the northwest and southwest corners
of the project that will replace residential stoops and patios with residential amenity space
consisting of an indoor fitness center at the northwest corner and a residential lobby and resident
pet spa at the southeast corner. The applicant submitted a justification letter and a letter of support
at the end of the Letter of Request (Attachment No. 5) to this report.
Ground Floor Use Diagram Modification – Development Area B
In accordance with the required findings for a minor modification, staff believes that the proposed
modifications do not intensify or significantly change the nature of the previously approved
ground floor uses. The modification does not create a substantive change from the approved
ground floor uses, as they will continue to provide for a walkable and pedestrian friendly street
frontage. No modifications to conditions of approval, and no new waivers of code requirements
are proposed. The modifications will not create a new environmental impact, and the underlying
zoning and the General Plan land use designations have not changed significant since the original
approval.
Staff believes that the proposed modifications will continue to maintain a walkable and pedestrian
friendly street frontage that furthers the goals and objectives of the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay
Zone, and the A-Town Master Site Plan. For these reasons staff recommends approval of the
modifications to the Ground Floor Use Diagram pursuant to Subsection .020 (Minor
Amendments) of Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of the Code.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that
previously certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for
DEV2020-00287 (AREA B)
January 19, 2022
Page 10 of 10
this request. An environmental checklist (Attachment No. 7) was prepared to determine that the
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, and
subsequent addenda, adequately analyzed the anticipated effects of the proposed project; and, that
the approved mitigation measures are appropriate for the project.
CONCLUSION: The proposed development is a carefully designed and planned project that
addresses the current and projected market conditions while continuing the implementation of the
A-Town Master Site Plan. The project also conforms to the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone,
and staff believes that the proposed development would be an appropriate addition to the Platinum
Triangle. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lisandro Orozco Scott Koehm
Senior Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Final Site Plan Resolution
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Final Site Plan Exhibits
4. Proposed Ground Floor Use Diagram
5. Letter of Request
6. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda
7. Environmental Checklist For EIR 339 Area B & E
E KAT ELLA AVES BETMOR LNS AUBURN WAYS SANTA CRUZ STS WESTSIDE DRE PARK ST
S UNION STE MERIDIAN STS MARKET STE. KATELLA AVE
S. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE
S.LEWISSTE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDE.GENE AUTRY WAYS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS.DOUGLASSRDS. CLEMENTINE ST2666 Wes t Lincoln Bouleva rd
DE V N o. 202 0-00287
Subject Property
APN: 232-121-30
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2021
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
DEV 2020-00287
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
BANK
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area A
PARALLEL APARTMENTS
387 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
JEFFERSON PLATINUM
TRIANGLE SOUTH
APARTMENTS
193 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
PARK VIRIDIAN
APARTMENTS
325 DU
I (PTMU)
Gene Autry Sub-Area C
INDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
CORE APARTMENTS
406 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area A
KATELLA GRAND
APARTMENTS
402 DU I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VIVERE LOFTS APARTMENTS
93 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VIVERE FLATS APARTMENTS
246 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area A
INDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area A
INDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area A
INDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area AINDUSTRIALE KAT ELLA AVES BETMOR LNS SANTA CRUZ STS WESTSIDE DRE PARK ST
S UNION STE MERIDIAN STS MARKET STE. KATELLA AVE
S. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE
S.LEWISSTE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDE.GENE AUTRY WAYS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS.DOUGLASSRDS. CLEMENTINE ST2666 Wes t Lincoln Bouleva rd
DE V N o. 202 0-00287
Subject Property
APN: 232-121-30
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2021
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2022-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT AREA 'B' OF THE MASTER SITE PLAN
APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00002)
(DEV2020-00287)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
- 2 - PC2022-***
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
- 3 - PC2022-***
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project;
and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
- 4 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
- 5 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
- 6 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064 (“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
- 7 - PC2022-***
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires final site plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 to construct a mixed-use project with 270-residential
dwelling units (for rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground floor commercial space with 505 square
feet of accessory outdoor dining space at the premises located at 1807-1837 South Market Street
at the southwest corner of East Katella Avenue and South Market Street in Development Area B
of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim, County of
- 8 - PC2022-***
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002, and environmental
checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant environmental
impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339 Addendum No. 4
would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more
severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any changes in
circumstances involving the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002; therefore, the Final Site Plan No.
2021-00002 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously
identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human
beings would occur because of the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements collectively constitute the
environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and
the City's CEQA Procedures relating to the Existing Entitlements and shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and
against proposed Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's CEQA Procedures, this Planning Commission has found and determined and has
recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating
to the Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project.
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution,
the CEQA Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plan No. 2021-
00002 and the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted.
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under
CEQA for Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find and determine that the request for a final
site plan for the Proposed Project should be approved for the following reasons:
- 9 - PC2022-***
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, the final site plan, including its design and
layout, complies with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Zone, as
described in Chapter 18.20 of the Code.
2. The design and layout of Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 will not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 is compatible with the
character of the surrounding residential and industrial development located within the land area of
the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
4. The design of the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 will provide a desirable
environment for its residents, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of
materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately
maintained.
5. Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares
that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all
evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002, Addendum No. 4, the CEQA
Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends that the
Planning Commission approve Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002, in the form presented at the
meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of (1)
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth relating to the propose Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid
- 10 - PC2022-***
or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 19, 2022.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 11 - PC2022-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 19, 2022, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of January, 2022.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-12- PC2022-***
-13- PC2022-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00002
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
1 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public
Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the
conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
2 Plans shall specifically indicate that all vehicular ramps and grades
conform to all applicable Engineering Standards.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
3 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad
elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion
control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance
with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest
edition.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 Prepare and submit a final drainage study, including supporting
hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and
approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's
adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm
water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan
land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution
and shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system
connection points and all downstream drainage-mitigating measures
including but not limited to offsite storm drains and interim detention
facilities.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
5 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
6 The owner shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction
Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to
the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent
notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID)
number.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
7 The owner shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available
for Public Works Development Services Division review upon request.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
8 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for
review and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
-14- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/
Significant Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of
pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the
proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff
from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment
Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMPs) to control or
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and
provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation
of and compliance with the defined BMPs.
9 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report
shall address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069
for the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to
this permit.
Various City
Departments
12 A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted at the time that grading plans are
submitted to Public Works for review and approval prior to building
permit issuance. Plan shall include (but not be limited to) emergency
vehicle site access, water availability and fire flow requirements, any
interior laddering requirements, and fire protection features like fire
sprinklers and alarms.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
13 Permanent, temporary, and phased emergency access roads shall be
designed and maintained to support an imposed load of 78,000 lbs. and
surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
14 Fire hydrants shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications and
Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available fire flow.
Provide locations of all existing fire hydrants within a 300 foot radius to
the proposed building. Fire flow requirements and distance may require
additional fire hydrants for the site
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
15 2019 CFC §510 – Emergency responder radio coverage (BDA/DAS)
shall be provided for the proposed new building(s).
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
16 All CBC and CFC requirements shall be followed for permit issuance.
Any fire permits which includes fire sprinklers, fire alarm, etc shall be
submitted directly to Anaheim Fire Prevention Department.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
-15- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
17 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to
establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system
plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related
technical drawings and specifications.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
18 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
19 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section
537-537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be
furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter
shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing
maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters
shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in
the Master CC&Rs for the project.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
20 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the
street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and
approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control
Inspector.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
21 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines,
as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing
water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated
and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current
Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire
line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued
use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed.
The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to
abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
23 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i)
an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire
hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire
hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement
for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-16- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the
Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s
standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include
language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any
special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but
not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete,
decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged
during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water
facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all
surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the
responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master
CC&Rs for the project.
24 The developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan, including
a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities Water
Engineering review and approval. The master plan shall demonstrate the
adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the project’s
water demands and fire protection requirements.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
25 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department
Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water
system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and
Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
26 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
27 Plans for the parking structure shall demonstrate that at-grade ducts and
overhead pipes shall not encroach in the parking space areas or required
vehicle clearance areas.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
28 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit draft
Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are prepared by
an authorized professional for review and approval by the City
Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which will generally
provide for the following:
a) A requirement that residents shall use designated parking area,
including garages, only for the parking of vehicles.
b) A provision that parking garages are subject to inspection by the
Association or City of Anaheim staff.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
-17- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
c) A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs
shall be submitted for review to the City Engineer, Planning
Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney
prior to the amendment being valid.
d) A provision that the City is a third-party beneficiary to the
CC&Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any
of the provisions of the CC&Rs relative to common area and
utility maintenance, Water Quality Management Plan, and
internal parking.
29 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that
the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City
approved grading plan.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the
Development Services Division for all work performed in the public
right-of-way.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in
compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (AV 1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 Submit an interim soils report indicating pad compaction and site
stability prepared by the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The
pad compaction report needs to include a site plan showing the
compaction testing locations.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
33 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
34 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to
the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as
shown on the approved utility service plan.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
35 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit
payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
36 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention
assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property,
behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public
Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-18- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
37 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled
on building plans.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
38 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
39 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer,
inspected and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building
and zoning inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
40 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must
be paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
41 Set all monuments in accordance with the final map and submit all
centerline ties to Public Works Department. Any monuments damaged
as a result of construction shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
42 Record Drawings and As-Built Plans shall be submitted for review and
approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services
Division.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
43 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface
improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way,
public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited
to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative
hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation,
repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for
maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included
in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement
deeds.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
44 The proposed market at 1807 South Market Street shall operate in
compliance with Section 18.35.155 (Markets) of the Code.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
45 The proposed pet spa, located on the ground floor at the southwest
corner of the building, shall be a residential amenity limited to use by
residents of the building and shall not be open to the general public. The
pet spa shall operate in compliance with Section 18.38.270 (Veterinary
Services and Animal Boarding) of the Code. Continued future use of
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
-19- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
this space shall be limited to residents of the building and shall not be
open to the general public.
46 The proposed fitness area, located on the ground floor at the northwest
corner of the project, shall be a residential amenity limited to use by
residents of the building and shall not be open to the general public.
Continued future use of this space shall be limited to residents of the
building and shall not be open to the general public.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
47 The residential amenity area consisting of a mail room, lobby, and
leasing office, located on the ground-floor at the southeast corner of the
project, shall be a residential amenity limited to use by residents of the
building. Continued future use of this space shall be limited to a
residential amenity.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
48 The proposed rooftop deck, located on the seventh floor at the southeast
corner of the project, shall be a residential amenity limited to use by
residents of the building and shall not be open to the general public.
Continued future use of this space shall be limited to residents of the
building and shall not be open to the general public.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
49 The project description states that deliveries to the market will be
coordinated as part of the store’s operations, allowing a flagman to
control traffic while a truck backs into the loading dock off of Westside
Drive. Due to the proximity of the loading dock to Katella Avenue, a
flagger would be required when a truck backs into the loading dock. In
addition, all truck operations must be outside of the AM and PM peak
hours with no deliveries at night (daylight hours only).
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
GENERAL
50 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
51 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan
for the A-Town Development shall apply to this final site plan approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
52 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new
and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants,
service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.):
• 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power
poles, street lights, and trees.
• 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other
utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground
facilities.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-20- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
• 6—feet minimum separation from curb face.
54 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
55 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
56 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no
equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
57 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation
of those identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified
in the measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of
approval by reference.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
58 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
59 The developer shall pay all applicable fees required under the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
-21- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
60 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying
and holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City
Council from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the
foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related
decision, or the adoption of any environmental documents which relates
to the approval of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall
include, but is not limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses,
attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be awarded to the
prevailing party, and costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other costs,
liabilities and expenses arising out of or in connection with the approval
of the application or related decision, whether or not there is concurrent,
or passive negligence on the part of the City, its agents, officers, council
members, employees, boards, commissions and their members and the
City Council. The property owner/developer shall have the right to
select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing
the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City Council's
adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2022-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 'B' OF THE MASTER SITE
PLAN APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06109)
(DEV2020-00287)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
- 2 - PC2022-***
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
- 3 - PC2022-***
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
- 4 - PC2022-***
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
- 5 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
- 6 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
- 7 - PC2022-***
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
requires conditional use permits to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a
noticed public hearing to make a finding of fact, by resolution, to verify compliance with Section
18.66.060 (Findings) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 to allow for ground-mounted utility facilities
within the East Katella Avenue structural setback at the premises located at 1807-1837 South
Market Street at the southwest corner of East Katella Avenue and South Market Street in
Development Area B of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109, and
environmental checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant
environmental impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 4 would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be
substantially more severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any
changes in circumstances involving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109; therefore,
- 8 - PC2022-***
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater
severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation
measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because of the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2021-06109, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in
conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing
Entitlements collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as
the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's CEQA Procedures relating to the Existing
Entitlements and shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and
against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's CEQA Procedures, this Planning Commission has found and determined and has
recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating to the
Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution, the CEQA
Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 and
the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 321 for
the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted; and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-
06109 on the Property does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 is an
allowable use within the "PTMU " Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone under subsection
.060 of Section 18.20.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone)
of the Code, subject to the zoning and development standards of the "PTMU" Platinum Triangle
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone; and
- 9 - PC2022-***
2. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 would not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 will continue to further
the vision of the Platinum Triangle by contributing to a an overall urban design framework
ensuring that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with
the character of the area in which they are located; and
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety because the site will accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and circulation
without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Additionally, the plans indicate
enhanced landscaping to screen visibility of the ground-mounted utility facilities as required by
Code; and
4. That Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109 will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
request to allow for ground-mounted utility facilities within the East Katella Avenue structural
setback will not produce any additional traffic beyond what was analyzed and approved in FSEIR
No. 339 and Addenda and what was approved in the Existing Entitlements; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and
safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109
would further the objectives of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, subject to
compliance with the conditions contained herein.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109, Addendum No. 4, the
other CEQA Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06109, in the form
presented at the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the
approval of (1) Final Site Plan No. 2021-00002, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth
in Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary
prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth relating to the propose Amended and Restated Development
- 10 - PC2022-***
Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid
or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 19, 2022.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 19, 2022, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of January, 2022.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-11- PC2022-***
-12- PC2022-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06109
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
1 The project landscape frontage along East Katella Avenue shall be
developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file
with the Planning Division, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department
Planning Services
Division
2 Enhanced landscaping must be planted and maintained to ensure full
screening of all utility devices located within the structural setback.
Planning and Building
Department
Planning Services
Division
3 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying and
holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council
from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing
individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related decision, or
the adoption of any environmental documents which relates to the approval
of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall include, but is not
limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert
witness fees that may be awarded to the prevailing party, and costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of or in
connection with the approval of the application or related decision, whether
or not there is concurrent, or passive negligence on the part of the City, its
agents, officers, council members, employees, boards, commissions and
their members and the City Council. The property owner/developer shall
have the right to select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to
approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal
counsel providing the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the
City for any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the
course of the defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City
Council's adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A0.0COVER SHEET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SHEET INDEX
A0.0 COVER SHEET
A0.1 PROJECT DATA & NOTES
A1.0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A2.1 PERSPECTIVE - KATELLA ENTRY
A2.2 PERSPECTIVE - MARKET ST
A2.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.5 RETAIL ELEVATIONS
A2.6 COLOR & MATERIAL
A2.7 BUILDING SECTIONS
A3.0 BUILDING PLANS - LVL B1
A3.1 BUILDING PLANS - LVL1
A3.2 BUILDING PLANS - LVL 2
A3.3 BUILDING PLANS - LVL 3
A3.4 BUILDING PLANS - LVL 4-6
A3.5 BUILDING PLANS - LVL 7
A3.6 BUILDING PLANS - ROOF LVL
A3.7 DRIVEWAY / RAMP / PARKING EXHIBIT
A3.8 SHADE & SHADOW STUDY
A5.0 UNIT PLANS
A5.1 UNIT PLANS
A5.2 UNIT PLANS
A5.3 UNIT PLANS
A5.4 UNIT PLANS
TR0.1 LEVEL 1 SITE PLAN
TR0.2 LEVEL 3 SITE PLAN
TR0.3 STAGING DIAGRAM
TR1.0 NORTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM DETAILS
TR1.1 SOUTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM DETAILS
TR1.2 COMMERCIAL TRASH & BIN STORAGE ROOM DETAILS
TR2.0 30" CHUTE DETAILS
C1 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN
C2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN - GROUND LEVEL
L-2 LANDSCAPE PLAN - LEVEL 3
L-3 LANDSCAPE PLAN - LEVEL 7
L-4 MASTER PLANT LIST
L-5 IRRIGATION PLAN
L-6 REC-LEISURE PLAN
L-7 REC-LEISURE PLAN
L-8 TRANSFORMER SCREENING EXHIBIT
LD-1.1 BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 1
LD-1.2 BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 3
LD-1.3 BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 7
LD-2.1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION PLANS - LVL 1
LD-2.2 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION PLANS - LVL 3
LD-2.3 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION PLANS - LVL 7
LD-3.1 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.2 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.3 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.4 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
F-1 TITLE SHEET
F-2 OVERALL FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-3 DEVELOPMENT AREA B FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-4 DEVELOPMENT AREA B ELEVATIONS
F-5 DEVELOPMENT AREA B SECTIONS
APPLICANT
LMC
95 Enterprise
Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
ARCHITECT
KTGY
17911 Von Karman Ave
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
CIVIL
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
3 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
LANDSCAPE
C2 COLLABORATIVE
100 Avenida Mirama
San Clemente, CA 92672
TRASH
AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT
1900 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
LIGHTING
LIGHTING DESIGN ALLIANCE
2830 Temple Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90806
FIRE
FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS
302 N. El Camino Real
Suite 208
San Clemente, CA 92672
ATTACHMENT 3
ZONING/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT
UNIT RANGE
RES. DENSITY RANGE
COMMERCIAL RANGE
MAX. SITE COVERAGE
MIN. SETBACKS
KATELLA AVE
MARKET ST
WESTSIDE DR
MERIDIAN ST
REC-LEISURE AREAS
STORAGE
LOADING ZONES
100'
165 - 281 UNITS
50 - 85 DU/ACRE
21,000 sf - 25,000 sf
75%
18' Res. buildings may encroach 3'
10'
10' Res. buildings may encroach 3',
Patios may encroach 7'
10' Res. buildings may encroach 3'
200 SF PER UNIT (54,000 SF)
100 CUFT PER UNIT
1 OFF-STREET LOADING ZONE PER 150
UNITS
SITE ADDRESS:1837 S MARKET ST. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA (RESIDENTIAL)
1807, 1819, 1825, 1831 S MARKET ST. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA (RETAIL)
APN:232-121-30
SITE AREA:3.3 ACRES
ZONING:Industrial
Overlay Zone: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone
Development District: Katella District
General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Urban Core
Other Planning Documents:Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, A-Town Master Site Plan
LESS THAN 90' (SEE ELEV.)
270 UNITS
82 DU/ACRE
SEE 'RETAIL AREA' TABLE
56%
COMPLIANT (SEE SITE PLAN)
56,865 SF (SEE L-6 & L-7)
ACCOMDATED IN UNIT. SEE UNIT
PLANS.
2 OFF-STREET LOADING ZONES
PROJECT & ZONING SUMMARY
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
USE
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
ALLOWABLE STOREIS
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL RETAIL
R-2, S-2, A-3, B, U
TYPE III-A WOOD FRAME, TYPE I-A
NPFA 13 PER SECTION 903.3.1.1
5 STORIES WOOD CONSTRUCTION
KATELLA AVE
GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVDB
575
2
A-TOWN SITE
ANGEL STADIUM OF ANAHEIM
ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
INTERMODAL CENTER(ARTIC)
SANTA ANNA RIVER
VICINITY MAP
1
3
2
1
3
4
4
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A0.1PROJECT DATA & NOTES
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
PARKING PROVIDED - RETAIL
Type Percent of Total Count
Retail - 19'-0" x 8'-6"74% 105
Retail Accessible - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 4% 5
Retail Accessible Van - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 1% 1
Retail Future EV - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 20% 28
Retail Future EV Accessible - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 1% 1
Retail Future EV Accessible Van - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 1%1
141
PARKING PROVIDED - RESIDENTIAL
Type Percent of Total Count
Residential - 19'-0" x 8'-6"74% 319
Residential Accessible - 9'-0" x 19'-0" 1% 6
Residential Accessible Van - 12'-0" x 19'-0" 0% 1
Residential Future EV - 19'-0" x 9' 21% 90
Residential Future EV Accessible - 9'-0" x 19'-0" 1%3
Residential Future EV Accessible Van - 12'-0" x 19'-0" 0% 1
Residential Tandem - 19'-0" x 8'-6" 3% 12
432
RETAIL AREA (INDOOR)
Retail Type Area
MARKET 16,163 SF
RETAIL / RESTAURANT 5,506 SF
21,669 SF
PARKING REQUIRED - RETAIL
Retail Type Retail Area Retail Parking Ratio Parking Required
MARKET 16,163 SF 5.5/1000 sf 89
OUTDOOR DINING 505 SF 8/1000 sf 4
RETAIL / RESTAURANT 5,506 SF 8/1000 sf 44
22,174 SF 137
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT INFO
RETAIL PROJECT INFO
INCLUDED IN PROVIDED PARKING:
• 10% OF PARKING SPACES TO BE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES CAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING FUTURE EVSE PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 4.106.4.1.1
• ALL RESIDENTIAL TANDEM PAIRS TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE SAME UNIT (2 BEDROOM)
• 1 IN 25 FUTURE EV CHARGING SPACES SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE (8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE)
• ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED AT A MINIMUM RATE PER 2019 CBC.11A &
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS.
0'200' 400' 800'
PARKING REQUIRED - RESIDENTIAL
Bedroom Type Count Parking Required Per Unit Total
1 BEDROOM 168 1.5 252
2 BEDROOM 102 2 204
456
UNIT COUNT
Bedroom Type Unit Type Count
Unit Area
(sf)
Net Rentable
(sf)
1 BEDROOM UNIT_B0-1 18 724 13,032
1 BEDROOM UNIT_B0-2 13 789 10,257
1 BEDROOM UNIT_B1-1 133 935 124,355
1 BEDROOM UNIT_B1-1 (ALT) 4 1,016 4,064
168 151,708
2 BEDROOM UNIT_B2-1 55 1,221 67,155
2 BEDROOM UNIT_B2-1 (ALT) 9 1,221 10,989
2 BEDROOM UNIT_B2-2 22 1,194 26,268
2 BEDROOM UNIT_B2-3 5 1,341 6,705
2 BEDROOM UNIT_B2-4 (TOWNHOME) 11 1,227 13,497
102 124,614
TOTAL 270 276,322
Guest - 19'-0" x 8'-6"82% 28
Guest Accessible - 9'-0" x 19'-0" 3% 1
Guest Accessible Van - 12'-0" x 19'-0" 3% 1
Guest Future EV - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 9% 3
Guest Future EV Accessible Van - 12'-0" x 19'-0" 3% 1
34
466TOTAL
1. ACCESS TO ALL PUBLIC AREAS IN AND AROUND THE BUILDING WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT.
2. THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.
GENERAL NOTES
NOTE: NET RENTABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE CITY REQUIRED STORAGE OR UNIT SIZE VARIATION DUE
TO FACADE MOVEMENT
0+95.260.0010+000.0010+000.00 0%16+35.20.000%ADAADADEAD END SUMPPROPOSED SECONDARY
DRAIN OUTLET
PROPOSED
TRENCH DRAIN
STOPSTOPSTOP
2'
PARKING
NOUPUPUPUPUPUP
UPUPUPUPUPUP
UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUP
UPUPUPUPUPUPEXIT
CARTS
E KATELLA AVEMARKET ST
WESTSIDE DR MERIDIAN STSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
L1
USPS
/ 30 MIN
LOADING
L2 L3
LEASING OFFICE
PARKING (NAP)
RETAIL /
RESTAURANT
MARKET
FITNESS
LEASING
MAIN
ENTRANCE
RAMP DN
LOBBY
RESIDENT
GUEST
LOBBY
VEHICULAR GATE
ELEC RM 1 & 2
ELEC. RM 4
ELEC RM 3
MARKET
LOBBY
RETAIL
PARKING
RESIDENTIAL
PARKING
RESIDENTIAL
PARKING
VEHICULAR GATE
DEVELOPMENT
AREA H
DEVELOPMENT
AREA C
DEVELOPMENT
AREA A
PUBLIC PARK DEVELOPMENT
AREA G
CARTS
3'-0"SETBACK10'-0"MARKET LOADING DOCKMAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL
ENCROACHMENT OVER
SETBACK LINE (MAX 30% of
ELEVATION) PER TABLE 20-H OF
CH18.20 PTMU OVERLAY ZONE.
SETBACK
10'-0"SETBACK10'-0"TRANSFORMER
TRANSFORMER
TRANSFORMER
TRASH
STAGING
LOADING / TRASH / MOVE-IN USPS / LOADING / MOVE-IN
RIDE SHARE
ELEC RM
GARAGE
PL TO CL
72'-0"
SETBACK
18'-0"
CL TO PL
84'-0"
MAIL RM
LOBBY
PET SPA
L4 L5
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
VEHICULAR ENTRY
FIRE ACCESS/EGRESS STAIR
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A1.0ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'15' 30' 60'0' 5'10' 20'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.1PERSPECTIVE - KATELLA ENTRY
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'0' 5'10' 20'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.2PERSPECTIVE - MARKET ST
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 710'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"12'-0"13'-0"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT85'-2"GRADE
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 710'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"12'-0"13'-0"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT81'-6"GRADE
1
2
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.3BUILDING ELEVATIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'
1" = 20'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"1WEST ELEVATION
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
13'-0"12'-0"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT86'-10"LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 710'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"12'-0"13'-0"GRADE
1
2
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.4BUILDING ELEVATIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1" = 20'-0"1EAST ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION
0'10' 20' 40'
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
DOUBLE HEIGHT PASEO FOR PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS FROM PARKING TO RETAIL FRONTAGE
RESIDENTIAL LOBBYRETAIL SPACE 2RETAIL SPACE 3 RETAIL SPACE 1 EGRESS STAIRS
ENHANCED MATERIAL ON SOLID WALL.GLAZING AT PEDESTRIAN
ENTRANCE CORNER
GLAZING AT PEDESTRIAN
ENTRANCE CORNER
4' DEEP METAL CANOPIES (TYP.) INTEGRATED
WITH STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM.
PROTECTED OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS
BETWEEN RETAIL & PUBLIC ROW (TYP.).
VARIOUS LAYERS OF PLANTING ALONG RETAIL EDGE (POTS,
BUILT UP PLANTERS, IN GROUND PLANTINGS, PALM TREES IN
GRATES, ETC.). SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.14' GLAZING HEIGHT (TYP.)ENHANCED MATERIAL ON SOLID WALL.ENHANCED STUCCO FINISH AT GROUND
LEVEL ALONG MARKET STREET.
MARKETPEDESTRIAN PASEO
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
ENHANCED MATERIAL
SOLID WALL
VARIOUS LAYERS OF PLANTING ALONG RETAIL EDGE (POTS, BUILT UP PLANTERS, IN
GROUND PLANTINGS, PALM TREES IN GRATES, ETC.). SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
RESIDENTIAL LOBBYLEASING OFFICE
4' DEEP METAL CANOPIES (TYP.) INTEGRATED
WITH STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM. 14' GLAZING HEIGHT (TYP.)LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
VARIOUS LAYERS OF PLANTING ALONG RETAIL EDGE
(POTS, BUILT UP PLANTERS, IN GROUND PLANTINGS, PALM
TREES IN GRATES, ETC.). SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
ENHANCED MATERIAL
ON SOLID WALL
ENHANCED MATERIAL ON
SOLID WALL
RESIDENTIAL LOBBYMARKET BACK OF HOUSEMARKET14' GLAZING HEIGHT (TYP.)+4' DEEP METAL CANOPY INTEGRATED
WITH STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM.
GLAZING AT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE
CORNER.
1
23
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.5RETAIL ELEVATIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
3/32" = 1'-0"2MARKET & IN-LINE RETAIL ELEVATION (EAST)
3/32" = 1'-0"3LEASING ELEVATION (EAST)
3/32" = 1'-0"1MARKET NORTH ELEVATION
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.6COLOR & MATERIAL
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
B1
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINERETAIL PARKING
SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
AMENITY
RETAIL
FF 152'
FF 150'FG 150'MARKET ST FG 151'TYP.18'-0"WESTSIDE DR
RETAIL SHAFT TO ROOF
RETAIL TRASH
TOWNHOME
UPPER LVL
TOWNHOME
LOWER LVL
FF 149'
FF 137.5'
FF 162'10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"12'-0"13'-0"11'-6"*8'-2"*DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR REQUIRED VEHICLES CLEARANCE
AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM 8’-2” CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL.*8'-2"*8'-2"1
2
2
1
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 5
B1
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
KATELLA AVE
MERIDIAN STFF 152'FG 151.5'
MARKET RETAIL PARKING
SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
CO-WORKING
TOWNHOME
UPPER LVLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEFF 149'
SPEED RAMP
FF 148'TYP.18'-0"STAIR BEYOND
FG 147' (KATELLA)
ROOFTOP DECK FF (BEYOND)
TOWNHOME
LOWER LVL
FF 149'
FF 137.5'FF 137.5'
FF 162'
POOL VAULT NOT OVER ACCESSIBLE DRIVE AISLE
*DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR REQUIRED VEHICLES CLEARANCE
AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM 8’-2” CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL.FROM LOWEST STREET GRADE70'-8" HIGHEST OCCUPIABLE FLOOR10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"12'-0"13'-0"11'-6"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"CLUBROOMSUPPORT
MEP
LOUVER
SCREENING
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.7BUILDING SECTIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1" = 20'-0"2CONCEPT SECTION E-W
0'10' 20' 40'0' 5'10' 20'
1" = 20'-0"1CONCEPT SECTION N-S
UP
A2.4
2
A2.3
1 RAMP UPA2.4
1
ASSIGNED
PARKING
A2.3
2
MAINT.
MEP
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
FAN ROOM
FAN ROOM
467'-9"
TRANSFORMER ABOVE
ELEC ROOM ABOVE
ELEC ROOM ABOVE TRANSFORMER ABOVE
ELEC ROOM ABOVE
32 STALLS
32 STALLS
31 STALLS
34 STALLS
33 STALLS
21 STALLS12 STALLS
21 STALLS 5 STALLS7 STALLS
2 STALLS6 STALLS3 STALLS9 STALLS9 STALLS10 STALLS 19 STALLS
3 STALLS6 STALLS18'-0"3'-6"5'-6"
3'-6"5.0%10.0%24'-0"3'-8"A3.7
2 276'-6"TYP. @ WALL
10'-0"12'-0"12'-0"FF 137.5'
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
58'-6"15.0%TYP
8'-6"6"MINTYP1'-6"TYP19'-0"2'-2" 18'-0" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 4'-6" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-6"
TYP
25'-0" 19'-0"25'-0" 2'-3" 27'-0" 2'-2" 27'-0" 2'-2" 26'-0"19'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'-0"19'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"1'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"2'-0"18'-0"TYP EV
9'-0"TYP VAN12'-0"5'-0"22'-10 1/2"60.00°
TYP
10'-0"TYP20'-7"VARIESGARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM 8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET A3.7.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE, SEE PARKING TABLES ONA0.1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.0BUILDING PLANS - LVL B1
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'0' 5'10' 20'
DEAD END SUMPPROPOSED SECONDARY
DRAIN OUTLET
PROPOSED
TRENCH DRAIN
STOPSTOPSTOP
DN
UP
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
CARTS
LOADING DOCK -75' TRUCKE KATELLA AVEMARKET ST
MERIDIAN STSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
L1 L2 L3
LOADING / TRASH / MOVE-IN
1,786 SF
RETAIL /
RESTAURANT
2,287 SF
MARKET
2,104 SF
FITNESS
1,974 SF
LEASING
LOBBY
MOVE-IN / UTILITY CORRIDORRESIDENT
GUEST
LOBBY
LOBBY
EXTENT OF
DOUBLE
HEIGHT
VOLUME
VEHICULAR
GATE
TRASH RM
ELEC RM 1 & 2
LOADING / MOVE-IN
ELEC. RM 4
ELEC RM 3
ELEV. EQ
LOBBY
13,876 SF
MARKET
A2.3
2
FF 149'
MPOE
FF 148'
FF 148'
FF 150'
FF 152'
FF 152' 5% RAMPFAN ROOM
1,808 SF
RETAIL /
RESTAURANT
1,912 SF
RETAIL /
RESTAURANT
SINGLE HEIGHT
SPACE
DOUBLE HEIGHT SPACE
20'-2"
VENTILATION
AREAWAY
VENTILATION
AREAWAY
UP 0.7%UP 5.0%DN 15.0%DN 10.0%2
A2.7
2
A2.7
RIDE SHARE
WESTSIDE DRIVE48'-9"ELEC RM
GARAGE
ELEV. EQ
RETAIL PARKING
TRASH RM
FAN ROOM
TRASH RM
RETAIL
25 STALLS 12 STALLS25 STALLS
20 STALLS
20 STALLS
3 STALLS 3 STALLS
4 STALLS25 STALLS
FG 151'
(SEE CIVIL)
TYP. @ WALL
10'-0"
FF 149'
FF 152'
FF 148' 12'-0"12'-0"FF 152'
FF 152'
FF 148'
FF 148' 60'-0"UP 10.0%DN 5.0%DN 2.2%
FG 152'
(SEE CIVIL)30'-2"1
A2.7
1
A2.7
PET SPA
FF 152' 5 STALLSFF 152.2'
29'-8"24'-0"
5
1'-0"
18'-10 1/2"7'-5 1/2"12'-0"
4"19'-0" 25'-0" 2'-2" 18'-0" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 4'-6" 17'-0" 10'-8" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-6"
TYP
25'-0" 19'-0"
TYP
8'-6"25'-0"19'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"1'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"6"MIN
6"TYP1'-6"TYP19'-0"TYP EV
9'-0"
A3.7
1
MAIL RM
TYP VAN
12'-0" 5'-0"
USPS
/ 30 MIN
LOADING
L4 L5
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM 8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET A3.7.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE, SEE PARKING TABLES ONA0.1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.1BUILDING PLANS - LVL1
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'
DN
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
659 SF
MAINT.189 SF
MEP
ASSIGNED
PARKING
452 SF
MAINT.
LOBBY
LOBBY
A2.3
2
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOWRAMP DN2
A2.7
2
A2.7
FAN ROOM FAN ROOM
RETAIL SHAFT
RETAIL SHAFT
26 STALLS 13 STALLS26 STALLS
26 STALLS
22 STALLS
17 STALLS
33 STALLS 12'-0"12'-0"5.0%10.0%15.0%24'-0"
11'-1 1/2"
TYP @ WALL
10'-0"
TYP. @ WALL
10'-0"FF 162'
658 SF
POOL
EQUIPMENT
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
TURN AROUND STALL41'-3"12'-0"5 STALLSTYP
8'-6"TYP1'-6"TYP19'-0"4"19'-0" 25'-0" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 4'-6" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-2" 25'-6" 2'-6"
TYP
25'-0" 19'-0"17'-9"2'-5"25'-0"19'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"1'-0"19'-0"25'-0"19'-0"6"TYP EV
9'-0"
MIN
6"
TYP VAN
12'-0" 5'-0"
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM 8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET A3.7.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE, SEE PARKING TABLES ONA0.1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.2BUILDING PLANS - LVL 2
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'0' 5'10' 20'
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
?
?
1,454 SF
CO-WORKING
3'-0"A2.3
2
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
471'-0"256'-0"264'-6"170'-6"94'-6"131'-6"37'-6"302'-0"164'-6"17'-6"74'-0"109'-6"28'-0"169'-6"40'-6"112'-6"
3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"IDF
1,398 SF
CLUBROOM
MEP
RESTROOM
RESTROOM
SHOWER
34'-0"
JANITOR CL
+0" +30" +30"
RESTROOM
+30"
+0"
35'-0"40'-0"39'-0"86'-7"
POOL FENCE
25'-0 1/2"1
A2.7
1
A2.7
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.3BUILDING PLANS - LVL 3
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'0' 5'10' 20'
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
A2.3
2
OPEN TO PODIUM
BELOW
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.4BUILDING PLANS - LVL 4-6
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'0' 5'10' 20'
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
A2.3
2
ROOFTOP WALKING SURFACE
FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY
LOW ROOF
LOW ROOF
OPEN TO PODIUM
BELOW
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
LOW ROOF
752 SF
AMENITY
652 SF
ROOFTOP
DECK
571 SF
ROOFTOP
DECK
582 SF
AMENITY
REST RM
UP
MAINTENANCE/EGRESS ACCESS
ONLY
MAINTENANCE/FIRE ACCESS ONLY
STAIR ACCESS TO LOW ROOF
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.5BUILDING PLANS - LVL 7
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20' 40'
A2.4
2
A2.3
1
A2.4
1
A2.3
2
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
FIRE ROOFTOP STAIR ACCESS
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.6BUILDING PLANS - ROOF LVL
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1" = 20'-0"1ROOF PLAN
0'10' 20' 40'
RESIDENT
GUEST
VEHICULAR GATE VISIBLE
FROM BUILDING FACE. FOB
CONTROLED FOR SECURED
RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY IN
BASEMENT LEVEL.
MPOE
152'
UP 0.7%UP 5.0%DN 15.0%DN 10.0%DN 5.0%
DN 2.2%
TRASH RM 24'-0"24'-0"
VEHICULAR GATE AT RAMP
FACE. FOB CONTROLED FOR
SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
AT LEVEL 2. GUEST ACCESS
PROVIDED THROUGH CALL BOX.
CALL BOX -GUESTS REQUEST GATE
ACCESS FROM APARTMENT TENANT.
IF ACCESS IS NOT PROVIDED, FULL
VEHICLE TURN AROUND MOVEMENT
PROVIDED FOR.
RESIDENT ONLY LANE
PROVIDED TO BYPASS
GUEST CALL BOX QUE. GATE
ACCESS CONTROLED BY FOB
WITHIN RESIDENT VEHICLES.
SIGNAGE TO BE PROVIDED
TO DIRECT GUEST &
RESIDENT ENTRY TRAFFIC.
DESIGN DEFERRED TO
COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE
PACKAGE. 12'-0"RESIDENT RESIDENT ENTRANCE ONLY. SIGNAGE
TO BE PROVIDED (SIGNAGE DESIGN
DEFERRED TO COMPREHENSIVE
SIGNAGE PACKAGE).
R 3 5 ' - 0 "14'-0"60'-0"R 30' - 0"UP 10.0%12'-0"20'-6"
40'-0"R 11' - 0"EDGE OF TRAFFIC LANEUP 15.0%1
A2.7
1
A2.7
5
1'-0"
18'-10 1/2"12'-0"
28'-4" 29'-8"
6" MIN.TYP.
8'-6"TYP.19'-0"TYP.1'-6"NOTE:
1. 1. OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN TO CONFORM
TO CITY OF ANAHEIM ENGINEERING STANDARD
DETAILS 470 & 471
2. 2. SEE PARKING TABLE ON SHEET A0.1 FOR SIZE
BY STALL TYPE
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.7DRIVEWAY / RAMP / PARKING
EXHIBIT20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1" = 10'-0"1LEVEL 1 -DRIVEWAY & RAMP
0'0' 5'10' 20'
1/8" = 1'-0"2TYPICAL PARKING
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.8SHADE & SHADOW STUDY
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'0' 5'10' 20'NOT TO SCALE
KITCHEN / DINING
LIVING
DECK
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.
L
P 11'-11"13'-2 1/2"11'-4"26'-2"
REQ'D STORAGE
AREA (MIN. 100
CUFT). NOT
INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF.26'-8"31'-0"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
11'-10"6'-8"11'-6"KITCHEN
LIVING
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.
P
DECK
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
REQ'D STORAGE AREA (MIN. 100
CUFT). NOT INCLUDED IN UNIT
NSF.31'-6"13'-3 1/2"11'-10"11'-6"6'-8"11'-4"6'-7"
14'-1 1/2"19'-0"9'-7"DINING
26'-2"
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.0UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT B0-1
0' 2' 4' 8'0' 5'10' 20'
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT B0-2
Count Unit Area
13 789
Count Unit Area
18 724
KITCHEN
LIVING / DINING
DECK
BED
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.
L
P 13'-8 1/2"13'-0"13'-0"18'-4 1/2"12'-1"37'-6"REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT). NOT
INCLUDED IN UNIT NSF.
13'-7 1/2"
27'-6"
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.33'-2"888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.1UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0' 2' 4' 8'0' 5'10' 20'
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT B1-1
Unit Type Count Unit Area
UNIT B1-1 133 935
UNIT B1-1 (ALT) 4 1016
137
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
KITCHEN
LIVING / DINING
DECK
BED
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.
L
P
BED
BATH
W.I.C.29'-11"12'-1"12'-6"
11'-7"8'-0 1/2"11'-7"11'-4"REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT). NOT
INCLUDED IN UNIT NSF.
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
37'-4"
KITCHEN
LIVING / DINING
DECK
BED
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.L
P
BED
BATH
W.I.C.29'-11"12'-0"12'-4 1/2"12'-6"11'-10 1/2"7'-7"11'-7"37'-4"11'-4"33'-2"4'-4"REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT). NOT
INCLUDED IN UNIT NSF.
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.2UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT B2-1 ALT
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT B2-1
Count Unit Area
55 1221
Count Unit Area
9 1221
KITCHEN
LIVING / DINING
BED
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
C.C.
L
P
BED
BATH
W.I.C.
DECK
11'-6"11'-5 1/2"
ADJACENT UNITADJACENT UNITREQ'D
STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT
TOTAL). NOT
INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF.12'-6"14'-9"
12'-6 1/2"30'-5"29'-3"12'-0"6'-6"4'-8"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
REQ'D STORAGE
AREA (MIN. 100
CUFT TOTAL).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF.
L
REQ'D STORAGE AREA (MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN UNIT NSF.
C.C.
KITCHEN
LIVING / DINING
BED
BATH
BED
W.I.C.
DECK
BATH
W.I.C.
W/D
L
DEN
33'-6 1/2"37'-8 1/2"29'-2 1/2"19'-3 1/2"20'-0"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.8'-8 1/2"11'-0"4'-8"11'-6"12'-0"7'-8"12'-8 1/2"
12'-6"7'-10"4'-4"8'-6"50% OPEN WALL
TO ADJACENT
SPACE FOR DEN
(PER 18.20.080.010)
4'-0"5'-8"888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.3UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT B2-21/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT B2-3
Count Unit Area
22 1194
Count Unit Area
5 1341
27'-8"6'-11 1/2"5'-9"6'-2 1/2"12'-0"25'-11"10'-9 1/2"13'-7"12'-0"19'-5"6'-6"2'-8"
27'-6"
CORRIDOR
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT). NOT
INCLUDED IN UNIT NSF.
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR /
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES.
BED 2 /
OFFICE
BED
W.I.C.
STOR.
BATH BATH
W/D 10'-11"30'-0 1/2"11'-5 1/2"
12'-6 1/2"13'-11"
EXTERIOR GROUND FLOOR
ACCESS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLAN FOR PATIO CONFIGURATION.
BATH
L
C.C.
KITCHEN / DININGLIVING
DECK
UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL
UP
DN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.4UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT B2-4
0' 2' 4' 8'0' 5'10' 20'
Count Unit Area
11 1227
147.99
FS
147.96
147.96
147.98
FS
147.99
FS
147.96
148.03
147.96
14X.X
147.98
FS
147.88
FS
147.81
FS
149.48
FS 150.48
FS
150.48
FS
150.48
FS
150.48
FS
149.98
FS
149.98FS
149.66FS
147.72
FS
147.87
TG
148.70
148.78
FS
148.78
FS
148.76
FS
148.78
FS
148.78
FS
148.89
FS 148.98
FS
148.98
FS
149.28
FS
151.98
FS
147.98
FS
147.98
FS
147.98
FS
151.98
FS
151.28
FS
151.65
FS
151.96
FS
151.98
FS
152.63
FS
152.48
FS149.45
FS
147.94
FS
147.91
FS
147.91
147.88
147.96
FS
148.45
147.98
FS
147.93
FS
147.98
FS
147.82
FS
148.28
148.15
148.36
TG
148.00
TG
148.00
FS
148.26
FS
149.23
FS-CONC
148.39
148.37
149.18
FS/0" CF
149.06
FS/0" CF
149.28
FS
149.51
149.68
148.34
148.26147.93
FS
148.01
FS
148.36
FS
148.40
FS
148.32
148.36
147.78
147.82
147.93147.79
147.79
147.81
147.76
TG
147.89
FS 147.96
FS
147.92
147.89
147.42
FG
14X.X
TG
14X.X
TG
14X.X
TG
147.53
FS
147.28
147.26
148.67
148.67
148.60
148.78
FS
148.78
FS
148.38
147.30
FG
147.95
147.26
149.25
FS-CONC
2-5.25"
149.06TC
149.23TC
149.98
FS
149.51 149.58
149.89
FS
149.89
FS
149.77
FS
149.69
149.68
FS
148.03
TG
147.87
TG
149.22
TG
149.82
149.76
FS
2"HX4"W
OPENINGS
149.83
FS
2"HX4"W
OPENINGS
149.98
FS
149.93
FS
14X.X
TG
150.48
FS
150.44
FS
150.33
FS
14X.X
150.33
FS
150.15
150.21 150.27
150.26
FS
150.44
FS
2"HX4"W
OPENINGS
150.26
FS
150.35
FS
150.48
FS
150.44
TC
150.48
150.41
151.09
152.48
FS
152.40
FS
152.35
FS
152.18
FS
152.35
FS
150.85TC
150.94TC
FS
151.26
FS-FL
151.26
150.89TC
151.03
150.85
150.85
150.85
152.30
FS
152.20
FS
152.22
149.18
FS
148.46
148.29
14X.X
TG
148.51 148.94
149.48
FS
149.38
FS
149.43
149.30 149.34
151.98
152.0
151.90
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.90
FS
149.50
149.53
6-5"
6-4.5"
RISERS
149.94
150.16
150.56 151.24
151.30
149.50
149.54150.22
EX-FS
149.40 149.65
FS
151.98
152.0
151.90
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.90
FS
5-4.5"5-4"
RISERS
150.03 150.23
FS
151.98
152.0
151.89
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.88
FS3-5"2-5.5"
RISERS
150.64 151.04
FS
151.98
152.0
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.88FS 151.87FS
151.56FS
150.61
EX-FS 150.84 150.90
EX-FS
151.78
151.79
151.98
152.0
151.86
TG
151.95
151.90
TG 151.93
151.77 151.72
152.57
FS
152.56
FS
152.18
FS
152.35
FS
152.62
FS
152.60
FS
152.58
FS
152.60
FS
152.54
FS
152.58
FS
152.63
FS
152.67
FS
150.33
FS
150.33
FS
151.80
151.64
EX-FS
151.78
FS
151.87
151.92
FS 151.84
FS
151.70
EX-FS
151.57
151.57 151.98152.0151.92152.0FS151.98FS151.82FS151.82151.86151.90151.86FS151.90FSFS
FS 0.69%1.1%0.50%1.00%
FS
FG
FG
TG
0.5%
2.0%2.0%1.0%
1.7%1.63%1.4%2.32%2.0%0.80%0.5%
3.46%
FS
1.67%1.58%3.34%1.43%4.89%1.0%1.36%1.6%
2.0%
1.3%
2.0%0.5%1.9%4.77%FS
FS 0.50%FS 0.50%1.0%1.6%1.0%FS
FS
2.0%0.50%1.87%1.87%1.85%
1.80%
FS-CONC
FS/GB 1.68%1.0%1.43%2.0%3.58%
FS
FS 1.21%1.0%
FS
FS
1.10%
0.64%0.56%0.52%FS
FS
FG
1.85%0.67%FS
0.60%FGFG
FG
2.0%
FG
FG
FG
2.0%
EX-FS
EX-FS
FS
FS
FS/GB
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
EX-FS
FGVAR%
FG
RISERS
148.60FS
5.5" CF
148.49FS
9" CF
FS FS
FS
2.4%4.0%FS
2.0%0.5%FS
0.7%2.0%3.44%1.1%FS
FS FS
0.5%0.7%1.4%1.55%0.70%1.0%
FS
FS
FS
1.0%0.5%1.2%TC
15X.XXFS
15X.XXFS
149.06.58%9.46%2.50%0.57%0.35%1.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
2.0%
TC
15X.XXFS
2.96%3.0%FS
TC
TC
TC
FS 2.88%EX-FS
FG
FG
1.86%FS 1.13%1.26%1.78%FG
EX-FS EX-FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG
EX-FS
EX-FS0.8%0.8%1.1%1.1%
RISERS
12" TRD
12" TRD
EX-FS
EX-FS
EX-FS EX-FS
EX-FS
EX-FS
EX-FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG0.8%0.8%1.2%1.2%
RISERS
12" TRD 12" TRD
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG0.8%0.8%1.2%1.2%
RISERS
12" TRD
6" RISER
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG0.8%0.8%1.1%1.1%
149.40FS
EX-FS EX-FS
EX-FS
FS
FS
FS 0.8%1.0%2.0%1.6%FS 1.09%EX-FS EX-FS
3.75" RISER 0.5%0.5%0.2%
FS2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%FS 4.0%1.7%0.5%FS
FS
2.79%
3.7%FSFSFS0.7%
0.7%1.35%1.35%FS1.9%FS1.0%
5.0%FS1.9%
1.0%
2.79%147.09
EX-
F
S
1
4
7
.
1
5
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
2
1
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
2
8
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
3
4
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
4
0EX
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
4
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
5
3
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
5
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
6
6
E
X
-
F
S147.72EX-FS1
4
7
.
7
5
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
6
3
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
7
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
8
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
0
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
1
5
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
3
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
5
8
E
X
-
F
S
149.
8
9
EX-F
S
1
5
0
.
1
9
E
X
-
F
S
150.
5
0
EX-F
S
150.
80
EX-F
S
1
5
1
.
1
1
E
X
-
F
S 151.41EX-
F
S
1
5
1
.
7
2
E
X
-
F
S 151.81EX-FS1
5
1
.
6
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
5
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
7
0
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
1
4
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
0
.
9
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
1
3
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
2
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
4
4
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
6
0
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
7
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
9
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
0
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
2
3
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
1
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
3
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
4
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
5
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
2
3
E
X
-
F
S150.05EX-FS
1
4
7
.
7
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
7
.
8
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
0
0
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
1
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
3
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
5
7
E
X
-
F
S
148.70
EX-FS
149.35EX-FS149.46EX-FS149.65EX-FS149.85EX-FS150.04EX-FS150.25EX-FS1
5
1
.
5
0
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
1
.
1
4
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
5
8
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
2
.
3
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
5
0
.
8
2
E
X
-
T
C
1
5
1
.
9
7
E
X
-
F
S
0.50%0.52%0.64%0.80%0.84%0.84%
2
.
3
1%
0.76%0.76%0.76%0.06%0.23%0.24%0.28%0.24%0.24%0.28%0.24%0.24%0.27%0.25%0.26%2.
1
7
%149.67EX-TC
150.12EX-T
C150.05EX-T
C149.94EX-TC149.80EX-TC1
5
0
.
8
8
E
X
-
T
C
1
5
0
.
9
3
E
X
-
T
C
1
5
0
.
9
9
E
X
-
T
C
1
5
1
.
0
5
E
X
-
T
C
FF=152.0 FF=152.0FF=152.5
FF=152.0
FF=149.0
FF=152.0 FF=152.0 FF=152.0 FF=152.0FF=148.0
FF=149.50
FF=148.0 FF=149.70FF=150.5FF=150.5
FF=148.7
FF=148.8
FF=148.8
FF=148.8
FF=148.8 FF=149.0
FF=148.0
FF=149.5
FF=149.2FF=149.0
FF=149.0
FF=152.0
FF=152.5
FF=148.0
FF=148.0 FF=148.0
FF=148.0
4"
STEP
FF=151.3
HA = SS-Market StHA = SS-Auburn Way
6"FIREDDC4.5'x7'8"DDCFORFIRE4'x9.5'3+67.96elev4+00 5+00
11+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+00ADA23+0024+0025+0019+42.0219+008x46x4HPHP#12#15#14#16#18#178x164x4EX #1#2#3#4EX #56'20'16'6'18'6'6'6'6'6'6'MOVEDRIVEWAY143.80143.85144.00144.01145.30145.15N 89°35'59" EN 77°27'54" WN 04°46'42" W
N 30°
0
1'
3
8"
W
N 29°35'59" EN 45°41'38" E171819202122231147.58
MERIDIAN STREETMARKET STREET
KATELLA AVE(PUBLIC)(PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PRIVATE)MERIDIAN STREETMARKET STREET
KATELLA AVE(PUBLIC)(PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PRIVATE)
MAINTAIN FLUSH ENTRY
CROSS SLOPE
EXCEEDS ADA
STRAIGHT 2%
DIDN'T WORK.
LOWERED STAIR
LANDING 0.1'
APU
APU
ELEC. RM
4277/480V
120/208V120/208V
A T & T
REAR LOAD LOAD
PULLA T & T
A T & T
UP
UP
DN
DN
33
44
55
66
77
88
H
H
J
J
L
L
M
M
N
N
P
P
Q
Q
R
R
S
S
G
G
22
T
T
U
U
E
E
D
D
B
B
A
A
99
11
1010
C
C
F
F V
V
ELEC ROOM 4
LOBBY 4
TRASH RM RETAIL
LEASING
FITNESS
ELEC ROOM 1 & 2
TRASH ROOM
TRASH ROOM
FAN ROOM
ELEC ROOM GARAGE
LOBBY 3
MARKET BACK OF HOUSE
MARKET
MPOE
FAN ROOM
TRASH ROOM
ELEC ROOM
PET SPA
LOADING DOCK
UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4
UNIT 2-4
UNIT 2-4
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR0.1LEVEL 1 SITE PLAN
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
NORTH
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH
COLLECTION
ROOM
SOUTH
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH
COLLECTION
ROOM
RETAIL TRASH COLLECTION
ROOMRETAIL TRASH COLLECTION
ROOM STAGING PATH OF
TRAVEL
BIN STORAGE
ROOM
BIN STAGING
ROOM PATH OF
TRAVEL
SOUTH
RESIDENTIAL BIN
PATH OF TRAVEL
SEE PAGE TR0.3
FOR STAGING
DETAILS
NORTH
RESIDENTIAL BIN
PATH OF TRAVEL
RETAIL TENANT
PATH OF TRAVEL
MARKET TRASH
AREA & PATH OF
TRAVEL
UP
UP
UP
DN
DN
DN
33
44
55
66
77
88
H
H
J
J
L
L
M
M
N
N
P
P
Q
Q
R
R
S
S
G
G
22
T
T
U
U
E
E
D
D
B
B
A
A
99
11
1010
C
C
F
F V
V
UNIT 0-1
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 2-3
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 0-1T
UNIT 1-1 UNIT 1-1T UNIT 1-1 UNIT 1-1T UNIT 2-2 UNIT 2-2 UNIT 2-1 UNIT 2-2
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 1-1TUNIT 1-1UNIT 1-1TUNIT 1-1UNIT 1-1TUNIT 1-1UNIT 1-1AUNIT 1-1T
UNIT 1-1UNIT 1-1TUNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-2
UNIT 0-1
UNIT 0-2T
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 0-2
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 0-1T
UNIT 2-2
UNIT 0-2T
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-1 UNIT 2-1
UNIT 1-1T UNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-1A
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-1A
UNIT 1-1T UNIT 1-1
TRASH ROOM 2Room
TRASH ROOM 1
CO-WORK
CLUBROOM
UNIT 1-1T
UNIT 0-1
UNIT 1-1
UNIT 2-1
UNIT 2-1
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR0.2UPPER FLOORS SITE PLAN
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
NORTH
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH VESTIBULE
SOUTH
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH VESTIBULE
FURTHER UNIT
PATH OF TRAVEL
388FT
FURTHER UNIT
PATH OF TRAVEL
374FT
WASTE - 3CY
RECYCLING - 3CY
RESIDENTIAL/MARKET/RETAIL
PROJECTED TRASH COLLECTION SCHEDULE / WK
M T W T F SERVICE S
6
COMPOST - 2CY
S
12
2
6
2MARKET - 4CY
TOTAL 6 6 4 0 00 0
COMPOST - (64 GAL)
148.70
148.78
FS
148.78
FS 148.78
FS
148.89
FS 148.98
FS
148.98
FS
149.28
FS
148.38
149.18
FS
148.46
148.94
149.48
FS
149.38
FS
149.43
149.30 149.34
151.98
152.0
151.90
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.90
FS
149.50
149.53
6-5"
6-4.5"
RISERS
149.94
150.16
150.56150.22
EX-FS
149.40 149.65
FS
151.98
152.0
151.90
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.90
FS
5-4.5"
5-4"
RISERS
150.03 150.23
FS
151.98
152.0
151.89
151.90
151.87
TG
151.97
151.99
151.90
151.87
152.0
FS
151.97
TG
151.98
FS
151.88
FS3-5"2-5.5"
RISERS
150.64 151.04
FS
150.61
EX-FS 150.84 150.90
EX-FS1.67%1.58%3.34%1.43%4.89%1.0%EX-FS EX-FS1.86%FS 1.13%1.26%1.78%FG
EX-FS EX-FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG
EX-FS
EX-FS0.8%0.8%1.1%1.1%
RISERS
12" TRD
12" TRD
EX-FS
EX-FS
EX-FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG0.8%0.8%1.2%1.2%
RISERS
12" TRD 12" TRD
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TG0.8%0.8%1.2%1.2%
RISERS
12" TRD
FS
EX-FS
1
4
8
.
6
3
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
7
6
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
8
.
8
9
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
0
2
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
1
5
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
3
7
E
X
-
F
S
1
4
9
.
5
8
E
X
-
F
S
149.
8
9
EX-F
S
1
5
0
.
1
9
E
X
-
F
S
150.
5
0
EX-F
S
150.80EX-
F
S
1
5
1
.
1
1
E
X
-
F
S
FF=152.0FF=152.0 FF=152.0
FF=148.8
FF=148.8 FF=149.0
FF=148.0
FF=149.5
FF=149.28"DDCFORFIRE4'x9.5'12+0013+0014+0015+00EX #1#220'16'MOVEDRIVEWAY143.80143.85N 29°35'59" E1WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PRIVATE)
WESTSIDE DRIVE
(PRIVATE)
STRAIGHT 2%
DIDN'T WORK.
LOWERED STAIR
LANDING 0.1'APU
120/208V120/208V
A T & T
ELEC ROOM 1 & 2
TRASH ROOM
ELEC ROOM GARAGE UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4 UNIT 2-4
ATTEMPATTEMP 35ft Front End Loader35ft Front End Loader
35ft Front End LoaderATTEMPATTEMP
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR0.3STAGING DIAGRAM
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
HAULER TO PULL BINS
OUT AS NEEDED
UNTIL ALL BINS ARE
SERVICED.
SECTION A-A
NORTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM UPPER RESIDENTIAL VESTIBULE LEVELS 02-07
3CY WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
AIR COMPRESSOR
POWER PACK (TYP)
CHUTE MASTER
CONTROL
COMPACTOR
DISCONNECTS
(TYP)
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
ODOR
CONTROL
HOT/COLD
HOSE BIB
111 4"H x 6"W
CURB (TYP.)
F.D
A-500
COMPACTOR (2)
3FT EXIT
DOOR
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART10FT ROLL UP DOOR64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
A-A
-
SHEET NOTES:
NORTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
1.TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE-RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT -
RESTRICTED ACCESS.
2.FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE
MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR.
3.WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP
OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF.
4.INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 1114"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL
NON-CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE
COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS.
5.10'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR.
6.ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016 CBC.
7.(2) 30"Ø GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. PROVIDE
3CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. SPARE BINS TO BE
STORED IN BIN STORAGE ROOM, SEE PAGE TR1.2. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5'-9"
AFF.
8.PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED INSIDE TRIPLE
STACKED FRAME. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS 60" AFF.
9.MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST
ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND
WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE.
10.AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED INSIDE TRIPLE
STACKED FRAME. REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
11.OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V 15A
SERVICE OUTLET.
12.HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
13.CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE-A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING-STEEL DOOR,
HELD OPEN BY 165° F FUSIBLE LINK.
14.(1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR STAFF MAINTENANCE
PURPOSE.
15.WASTE CADDY FOR MOVING CONTAINERS. 10,000LBS CAPACITY, 3MPH MAX SPEED.
BATTERY POWERED, REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET, TO BE STORED IN SOUTH
RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM.
CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: LEVELS 02 THROUGH 07
16.CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1HR FIRE-RATED WITH 1HR FIRE-RATED DOOR;
5'-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF
CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC
OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS
PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0.
17.CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR
SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO
OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS
AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES (BY OTHERS).
18.PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR
OPENINGS AT WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT
EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING
AND MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY
BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
MANUFACTURER.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR
SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES,
DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT
BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
2.OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE
DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE
CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM
PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE
WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND
DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO
START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF
ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES.
3CY COMPACTOR CONTAINER
CHUTE DISCHARGE
DOOR, SEE NOTE 14
APOLLO MODEL A500
COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL
30"Ø CHUTE
SECTION B-B
NORTH RESIDENTIAL -PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE
WASTE 2 x 3CY COMPACTED BIN
SERVICE:FREQUENCY:CONTAINER VOL / TYPE:
1x/wk
6 x 64GAL GARTSCOMPOST
RECYCLE
1x/wk
2 x 3CY COMPACTED BIN 1x/wk
(2) 30"Ø CHUTES
W/ 34"Ø ROUND
FLOOR OPENINGS
(TYP).
(2) SELF CLOSING,
15 x 18 BH
AUTOMATIC
OPENING DOOR,
PER CBC 713.13.1.
3FT EXIT
DOOR
RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM
FOR COMPOST. TO BE
EMPTIED DAILY INTO
TRASH COLLECTION
ROOM COMPOST
CONTAINER.
W
R
WASTERECYCLING
(2) 30"Ø
GALVANEAL
CHUTE
TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
APOLLO MODEL
A500 COMPACTOR,
(2) TOTAL
BIN NOT SHOWN
FOR CLARITY
B-B
-
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
REAR VIEW
FRONT VIEW
O/A
OPENING
12g SIDES &
BOTTOM
8" x 8" x 1
4" REINFORCING
PLATE FOR CASTER
BRACKETS. (INSIDE)
DOUBLE CROSS
MEMBERS -LID
REINFORCING
3HD HINGES/ LID
6" HD RIGID
CASTERS
2 LATCHES /LID
1
4" BAFFLE PLATE
2 LATCHES /LID
3HD HINGES/ LID
STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS
SIDES & BOTTOM............. 12g
LIDS .................... ........ 14g reinforced
LIFTING POCKETS .............. 1
4"
CASTER PADS.................... 4 x 4 1/2
Quick Release
W/ REINFORCED PLATE....... 8" x 8"x 1/4"
REINFORCING CHANNELS.... 10g
CASTERS: 2 x 6 POLYURETHANE
1200 LB CAPACITY MIN.
2 FIXED, 2 KINGPINLESS SWIVEL
LID HINGES: 3 SETS/ LID
LID LATCHES: 2 /LID
KINGPINLESS
SWIVEL HD
CASTERS BOTTOM FORK LIFT
POCKETS
3CY COMPACTOR CONTAINER DETAILS
8
D
8
D
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR1.0NORTH RESIDENTIAL
TRASH ROOM DETAILS20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
(2) 30"Ø CHUTES W/ 34"Ø
ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS
(TYP).
(2) SELF CLOSING, 15
x 18 BH AUTOMATIC
OPENING DOOR, PER
CBC 713.13.1.
3FT EXIT
DOOR
RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM
FOR COMPOST. TO BE
EMPTIED DAILY INTO
TRASH COLLECTION
ROOM COMPOST
CONTAINER.
64 GALLON CART DETAILS
FRONT VIEWPLAN VIEW SIDE VIEW
SECTION A-A
W
R
WASTE
RECYCLING
(2) 30"Ø
GALVANEAL
CHUTE
TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
APOLLO MODEL
A500 COMPACTOR,
(2) TOTAL
3CY COMPACTOR CONTAINER
CHUTE DISCHARGE
DOOR, SEE NOTE 14
APOLLO MODEL A500
COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL
30"Ø CHUTE
SECTION B-B
SOUTH RESIDENTIAL -PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE
WASTE 2 x 3CY COMPACTED BIN
SERVICE:FREQUENCY:CONTAINER VOL / TYPE:
1x/wk
6 x 64GAL GARTSCOMPOST
RECYCLE
1x/wk
2 x 3CY COMPACTED BIN 1x/wk
3CY WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
AIR COMPRESSOR
POWER PACK (TYP)
CHUTE MASTER
CONTROL
DISCONNECTS
(TYP)
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
ODOR
CONTROL
HOT/COLD
HOSE BIB
111 4"H x 6"W
CURB (TYP.)
F.D
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
A-A
-
WASTE
CADDY
(2) A-500
COMPACTORS10'-0" ROLL-UP DOORSOUTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
UPPER RESIDENTIAL VESTIBULE
B-B
-
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
3CY COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
SHEET NOTES:
SOUTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
1.TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE-RATED TRASH CHUTE
SHAFT - RESTRICTED ACCESS.
2.FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO
HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER
COMPACTOR.
3.WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE
SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF.
4.INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 1114"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL
NON-CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE
COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS.
5.8'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR.
6.ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2016
CBC.
7.(2) 30"Ø GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING.
PROVIDE 3CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING.
CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5'-9" AFF.
8.PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED. (2) 5HP
3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS 60" AFF.
9.MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING
CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED
SERVICE.
10.AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED. REQUIRES
120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
11.OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES
120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
12.HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
13.CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE-A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED
SLIDING-STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165° F FUSIBLE LINK.
14.(1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR STAFF
MAINTENANCE PURPOSE.
15.WASTE CADDY FOR MOVING CONTAINERS. 10,000LBS CAPACITY, 3MPH MAX
SPEED. BATTERY POWERED, REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES:
16.CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1HR FIRE-RATED WITH 1HR
FIRE-RATED DOOR; 5'-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS -
RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM
HINGED, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE
DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC
713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0.
17.CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN
INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE
REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL
BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES
(BY OTHERS).
18.PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED
FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR
SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE
DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION
PAD ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR
SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR
SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES,
DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE
FOR CONSTRUCTION.
2.OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE
DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY
TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR
WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE
CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY
DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF
FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS
PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED
IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY
DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES.
DESIGN ISSUES:
1.GREATER SPACE NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WHERE INDICATED AT ROLL UP
DOOR. USUALLY ROLL UP DOOR HARDWARE MAY STICK OUT PAST THE
OPENING WHEN MOUNTED OVERHEAD. PLEASE TRY TO MIRROR THE
CONFIGURATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR.
BULK TRASH : STAFF TO
TRANSFER CARDBOARD
TO RESIDENTIAL TRASH
ROOM AS NEEDED, TYP
AT EACH FLOOR
8
T
U-LINE
COLLAPSIBLE
WIRE CONTAINER
MODEL H-1731
3412" HEIGHT
8
T
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
GREATER SPACE
NEEDS TO BE
PROVIDED IN ORDER
TO MOUNT DOOR
HARDWARE.
DESIGN ISSUE #1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR1.1SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
TRASH ROOM DETAILS20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE- RETAIL
WASTE 2 x 3CY COMPACTED BINS
SERVICE:FREQUENCY:CONTAINER VOL / TYPE:
2 x 2CY COMPACTED BINSCOMPOST
RECYCLE
1x/wk
2 x 3CY COMPACTED BINS
1x/wk
1x/wk
SHEET NOTES:
RETAIL TRASH ROOM
1.TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS A 1HR FIRE-RATED ROOM -
RESTRICTED ACCESS.
2.FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING.
FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN.
FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTOR.
3.WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF
SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF.
4.INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 1114"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT
BASE OF ALL NON-CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB
AROUND THE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS.
5.8'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR.
6.PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED. (2)
5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS 60" AFF.
7.OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS.
8.HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
9.WASTE CADDY FOR MOVING CONTAINERS. 10,000LBS CAPACITY,
3MPH MAX SPEED. BATTERY POWERED, REQUIRES 120V 15A
SERVICE OUTLET. STORED IN SOUTH RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM.
15.(1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR
STAFF MAINTENANCE PURPOSE.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS
DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING NARRATIVES, DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE
HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR
CONSTRUCTION.
2.OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE
INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE
MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARILY
PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM
PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED
DETAILS OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF
FULLY AND CORRECTLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE
ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING
FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR
INCONSISTENCIES.
CONTROL
PANEL
27" x 27"
ACCESS DOOR
A500 HAND FED
COMPACTOR
SINGLE SIDE
CONTAINER LATCH
PHOTO ELECTRIC
SENSOR
SECTION A-A
3CY COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
F.D
HOT/COLD
HOSE BIB
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
ODOR
CONTROL
111 4""H x 6"W
CURB (TYP.)
BIN STORAGE ROOM
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(NORTH-RESI)
3CY SPARE
RECYCLE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(NORTH-RESI)
3CY SPARE
RECYCLE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(NORTH-RESI)
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(NORTH-RESI)
10FT ROLL UP DOOR
10FT ROLL UP DOOR
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
2CY SPARE
COMPOST
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
2CY SPARE
COMPOST
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
(RETAIL)
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
COMMERCIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
ODOR
CONTROL
HOT/COLD
HOSE BIB
111 4""H x 6"W
CURB (TYP.)
F.D
8FT ROLL UP DOOR
3CY WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER 3CY RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
A-500 COMPACTOR
HAND FED W/ POWER
PACK ATTACHED
P200 POWER PACK --
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
A-A
-2 CY COMPOSTCONTAINER (INSIDE P200)P200 COMPOST
COMPACTOR
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
COMPACTOR POWER
PACK (TYP -- 2 TOTAL)
DISCONNECT(TYP -- 2
TOTAL)
TRASH RM RETAIL
3
J
TRASH ROOM
9
F
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR1.2COMMERCIAL TRASH & BIN
STORAGE ROOM DETAILS20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
12g GALV.
SHEET METAL
1" x 1" x 1
8" ANGLE
STIFFENERS TACK WELDED
TO INSIDE POUR RING
STIFFENERS REMOVED
PRIOR TO CHUTE
INSTALLATION
CHUTE SHAFT AT INTAKE
NO CONTACT BTWN GYP BOARD, FRAMING &
CHUTE. SEAL GAP W/ FLEXIBLE ACOUSTIC
RATED FIRE CAULKING AT PENETRATION
THROUGH WALL & SHAFT, ALL AROUND
FIRE-RATED ACOUSTIC
FLEXIBLE SEALANT
TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT
TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS
(BY OTHERS)
OPP
HAND
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT
TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS (BY
OTHERS)
ANCHOR BOLTS W/ NEOPRENE GROMMETS.
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION
PADS BELOW FRAME
CHUTE AIR AND SOUND ISOLATION FIRE SPRINKLER DETAILS AND CHUTE SANITATION UNIT
AT HIGHEST INTAKE
ROOF LEVEL
NOTES:
1.ATTACHMENT OF ALL BLOCKING, CURBS, AND OTHER ROOF COMPONENTS SHALL BE
DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MANUFACTURER.
2.SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL WORK BY OTHERS.
TYP RESIDENTIAL LEVEL
CL
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
CL
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX
OPENING FROM F.O. WALL
SEE DETAIL 1/-
CONC SLAB & ROOF ASSEMBLY
BY OTHERS (S.S.D.)
ACOUSTIC
SEALANT
VENT CAP W/ CURB FLASHING
BY OTHERS (S.A.D.)
CONC CURB BY
OTHERS (S.A.D.)
CL
5 7
10
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND
ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME
A36 FLOOR FRAME
SEE PLAN
ASTM A307 3 8"Ø CAST-IN-PLACE ANCHOR BOLT
(2) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY
ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN
ACOUSTICS REPORT
NOTES:
1.REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT LISTED.
ASTM A307 5 16-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW
W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE
GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY
9
9
-
9
-
NOTES:
1.CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND
PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED
SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO
OCCUPIED SPACES (BY OTHERS).
2.INTAKE DOOR NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
DISCHARGE LEVEL
WILKINSON TYPE-A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION 90 MINUTE
FIRE-RATED, NARROW GUILLOTINE FIRE DOOR W/ 165° F.
FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION
12
FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING
SECTION VIEWS
FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING
PLAN VIEWS
15
-
TYPE I FLOOR
CONNECTION
SCALE: 112" = 1'-0"
DUCTILE IRON HOUSING
BRIDGE-BEARING QUALITY
NEOPRENE
CHUTE VENT
AT ROOF LEVEL11 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR1
NOTES:
1.SEE DETAIL 1/- FOR CHUTE INTAKE DOOR INFORMATION.
2.SEE DETAIL 9/- FOR ADDITIONAL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING INFORMATION.
3.ANCHOR FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT ONE END AS SHOWN. OTHER SIDE OF FRAME TO REST
ON TOP OF FLOOR AT INTAKE WALL. SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT OF CHUTE SHAFT.
NOTES:
1.PROVIDE HIGH PRESSURE CHUTE WASHDOWN NOZZLE.
2.FILL SANITATION TANK WITH CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTION. THE SYPHON HOSE SHOULD REACH THE BOTTOM
OF THE SOLUTION CONTAINER. TO FLUSH WITH CLEAR WATER, TURN HANDLE TO THE ON POSITION. FACTORY SETTING OF
THE PROPORTIONING VALVE IS FOR 50-GALLONS PER GALLON OF DISINFECTING SOLUTION.
3.NOTE THAT THE ACCESS DOOR AND D & S UNIT ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE OF CHUTE SHAFT FOR CLARITY. ALL WASHDOWN
EQUIPMENT WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN CHUTE SHAFT, ABOVE THE HIGHEST INTAKE. (1) D & S UNIT PER CHUTE.
4.2019 CBC - 11B-308.2.1(FORWARD) & 308.3.1(SIDE) HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED
NO HIGHER THAN 44 INCHES AND NO LOWER THAN 34 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE MEASURED
TO THE CENTER OF THE PUSH BUTTON.
5.2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND
SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE
CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.
6.SUPPLIED BY CHUTE VENDOR - INSTALLED BY PLUMBER.
5
1
2
4 2
6
3
D & S UNIT (NTS)
INSTALLED BEHIND F.O. WALL
15x15 ACCESS DOOR (NTS) INSTALLED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ERECTING WALL
8
9
CL
CONC SLAB OR WOOD
WHERE OCCURS
(S.S.D.)
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM
F.O. WALL, SEE DETAIL 2/- & NOTES 4 & 5 FOR
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
7
2
NOTES:
1.INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE.
2.BOTTOM HINGED DOORS ARE SELF-CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF-LATCHING. UL CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE
FIRE-RATED DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE RISE OF 250° F MAX IN 30 MINUTES.
3.MAX OPENING FOR INTAKE DOOR IS 14" FROM FACE OF FINISHED WALL.
4.2019 CBC - 11B-308.2.1(FORWARD) & 11B-308.3.1(SIDE) HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS
SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED
FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE PUSH BUTTON.
5.2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE
HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE
REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.
FLUSHING SPRAY
HEAD BELOW
CHUTE VENT AND
ABOVE TOP CHUTE
INTAKE DOOR
FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT LOWEST
LEVEL OF
BUILDING
*FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT
HIGHEST LEVEL
OF BUILDING
FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT EVERY
OTHER FLOOR
EXAMPLE
BUILDING VERTICAL
SECTION VIEW
*WHEN CALCULATING
NUMBER OF FIRE
SPRINKLER HEADS FOR
EVERY OTHER FLOOR
ALWAYS START WITH
HIGHEST LEVEL
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
12"Ø HOLES FOR 3 8"Ø
ANCHOR BOLTS (2) TOTAL
PER ASSEMBLY
EDGE OF 34"Ø FLOOR
OPENING: TYPE I FLOOR
EDGE OF 30"Ø CHUTE
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
A36 L112"x112"x14x SQ.
FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME TYP
*SOUND CONSULTANT
TO VERIFY DETAILS
AND UPDATE AS
NECESSARY*
-18x18 AIR ASSIST ACCESS DOOR IS
LARGEST DOOR THAT ATM WILL
DESIGN FOR CHUTE INTAKE.
-ATM WILL NEVER DESIGN A 24X24
INTAKE DOOR AS THESE DOOR SIZES
HAVE LED TO FATALITIES.
2 LAYERS OF 5 8" SHEET
ROCK RECOMMENDED
FOR 2HR RATED WALL,
OR EQUIVALENT.
WATER LINE FOR WASHDOWN
RISER IF NOT PROVIDED
ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE (TBD
BY PLUMBING)
SPRINKLER RISER
(TBD BY FIRE SPRINKLER
DESIGNER)
3
4" CONDUIT FOR AIR
COMPRESSOR
112"Ø HOLES (5) (TYP)
1/2" EMT TO
WASHDOWN SOLENOID
ABOVE HIGHEST
INTAKE. (OPTIONAL)
1" EMT FOR LOW
VOLTAGE POWER
MASON BRA-RED
MOUNT (4 REQUIRED)
(TYP)
J-RUNNER / J-STRUT 212JR-23
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING SYSTEM
(CHANNEL AT TOP AND BOTTOM)(BY OTHER)
1" THICK GYPSUM LINER PANEL
(UL TYPE SLXTM) (BY OTHER)
ACOUSTICAL INSULATION. REFER TO
ACOUSTICAL REPORT FOR LOCATION
R-19 MIN. BATT INSULATION PER
SPECIFICATIONS AT CONDITIONED
AREAS.(BY OTHER)
(2)LAYERS 5 8" TYPE "X GWB" OR 5 8" IRE
RATED MOLD AND MOISTURE
RESISTANT GYP BD. @ BATHS &
KITCHENS AND 5 8" DENARMOR @ TUB
LOCATIONS (BY OTHER)
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING
SYSTEM. E STUD-212ES-23( TYP AT
EACH SIDE OF WALL, BY OTHER)
CH METAL STUD (2-1/2") 212CH -23
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING SYSTEM
(24" O.C TYP) (BY OTHER)
DO NOT INSTALL THIS
FRONT PORTION OF
THE WALL UNTIL
AFTER CHUTES ARE
INSTALLED.
MINIMUM SHAFT DETAILS
WALL ASSEMBLY AS SCHEDULED
WALL PANELS AS SCHEDULED
CONC. CURB AS SCHEDULED
DOWEL, TYP. S.S.D.
J-MOLD
FURRING AS REQUIRED
EPOXY COVE BASE AND EPOXY
FLOOR AS SCHEDULED
CONC. SLAB, S.S.D.
EPOXY TO LAP OVER CURB AND
TO GO UP THE WALL 6".
WALL PROTECTION CONCRETE CURB3
SCALE: 3 8" = 1'-0"
SHEET NOTES: CHUTE DETAILS
1.CHUTE MATERIAL: GALVANIZED OR GALVANEAL 16G STEEL
2.ALL WALL ASSEMBLIES ENCASING THE CHUTE SHAFT SHALL BE 2HR FIRE-RATED.
3.SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION NOT RELATED
TO ATM'S SCOPE OF WORK PER AGREEMENT.
4.POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
MANUFACTURER.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY
CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR
CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM
ARCHITECT.
2.ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN
DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE
CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF
CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR
DISCREPANCIES.
SCALE: 6" = 1'-0"
MASON BRA-RED MOUNT
DUCTILE IRON
HOUSING
RADIAL CLEARANCE (RC)
ASTM A307 5/16" XXX CAP SCREW W/STANDARD WASHER &
NEOPRENE GROMMET , (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY. TYP AT TYPE I
& TYPE III CONSTRUCTION
BRIDGE-BEARING
QUALITY NEOPRENE TYPE I CONNECTION :
1
2 DIA. HOLES FOR ASTM A307 3
8" DIA.
POST-INSTALLED ANCHOR BOLTS, (2) TOTAL
PER ASSEMBLY. ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY
W/ RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS
REPORT. PROVIDE SIMPSON SET-XP EPOXY
ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM FOR POST
INSTALLED ANCHORS (ICC-ES-ESR-2508)
3"
2"
3/16"
1-3/8"
1-3/8"
1-5/8"
1-5/8"4-1/4"
NOTES:
1.ALL HARDWARE PLATED
2.REFER TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED
2-1/2"
2-1/2"
3
4"
3
4"
TYPE III CONNECTION :
3
8" DIA. HOLES FOR SIMPSON 5 PAX #6 x 5
8"
R200
PANHEAD ZINC SCREW (4) TOTAL PER
ASSEMBLY. ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS
REPORT(ICC-ES-ESR-2236).
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION
PADS BELOW PLATE. SEE MFG.SPECS. TYP AT
TYPE I AND TYPE III CONSTRUCTION
COMPACTOR & POWER PACK ANCHORING DETAILS4
ZINC PLATED OVERSIZED STEEL
WASHER 0.688" x 2.25
MASON TYPE HG-75
NEOPRENE BUSHING
PROTECTIVE STEEL BUSHING
ALLSTAR ALL18568 -10 REDUCER
3
4" - 5
8" x 1.25" LONG
HILTI 5
8" x 5" ANCHOR BOLT
OR WEDGE ANCHOR
MASON 3/4" THICK NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD, 6" x 4" .
CAPACITY PER LEG: 1400 LB
6"x 4"x 1
4" LEG
BASE PLATE
W/ 1.062 " HOLE
C6 x 13# CHANNEL
COMPACTOR LEG
ZINC PLATED OVERSIZED STEEL
WASHER
HILTI 1/4" x 3" ANCHOR BOLT
OR WEDGE ANCHOR
MASON 3/4" THICK NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD, 2" x 2" .
CAPACITY PER PAD: 230 LB
MASON TYPE HG-25
NEOPRENE BUSHING
POWER PACK LEG 12g
0.562 " HOLE
CENTERED (4)
C6 x 13# CHANNEL
COMPACTOR LEG
6"x 4"x 1
4" LEG
BASE PLATE
W/ 1.062 " HOLE
MASON 3/4" NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD,
6" x 4" .
SCALE: 3 8" = 1'-0"
COMPACTOR ANCHORING
POWER PACK ANCHORING
COAT CHUTE W/ SOUNDCOAT DAUBERT V-DAMP
3680 OR EQUIVALENT ; MATCH THICKNESS OF
METAL
15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, NORMALLY
CLOSED LOW-VOLTAGE
ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED,
AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOOR
PLAN VIEW
SATIN CHROME PULL
HANDLE W/ THUMB
LATCH
SECTION VIEW FRONT VIEW
PLAN VIEW
RED OPEN BUTTON
PLUMBING SCHEMATIC LEGEND:
1.3 4"Ø DOMESTIC HOT WATER INLET WITH VACUUM BREAKER. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
2.QUARTER-TURN GATE VALVE (SHUT-OFF AND BYPASS), (2) TOTAL. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
3.PLUMBING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND INSTALLATION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
4.24-VDC SOLENOID VALVE (OPTIONAL). NOT NEEDED FOR MANUAL OPERATION. (NOT USED HERE)
5.D & S UNIT: 1-GALLON CONTAINER, MOUNTING BRACKET, AND PROPORTIONAL VALVE AT REMOTE LOCATION.
(SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
6.FLUSHING SPRAY HEAD BELOW CHUTE VENT. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING
SUBCONTRACTOR)
7.FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST INTAKE, LOWEST INTAKE, AND EVERY OTHER FLOOR BETWEEN, TO BE STARTED FROM
HIGHEST INTAKE - CONNECTION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY FIRE
SPRINKLER SUBCONTRACTOR)
8.SIDE-HINGED, UL RATED 90 MINUTE B-LABEL ACCESS DOOR. (SUPPLIED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. INSTALLED BY
FRAMING SUBCONTRACTOR OR GC)
9.SATIN CHROME PULL-HANDLE. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY CHUTE MANUFACTURE)
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET TR2.030" CHUTE DETAILS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK B
13'11'11'11'11'11'11'13'26'7'6'18'7'6'4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)ResidentialPotential 1st FloorRetail UseR/WR/W13'46'46'13'118'144'SidewalkParkwaySetbackMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel LanesSidewalkParkwayKATELLA AVENUE(PUBLIC)setback areaHardscape in 80% Max.SECTION E-EProposed 13'11'11'11'11'11'11'13'26'7'6'18'7'6'4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)ResidentialPotential 1st FloorRetail UseR/WR/W13'46'46'13'118'144'SidewalkParkwaySetbackMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel LanesSidewalkParkwayKATELLA AVENUE(PUBLIC)setback areaHardscape in 80% Max.SECTION E-EProposed 62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION D-D13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'WESTSIDE DRIVE AND(PRIVATE)MERIDIAN STREETProposed Existing62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION D-D13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'WESTSIDE DRIVE AND(PRIVATE)MERIDIAN STREETProposed Existing68'34'24'34'24'10'R/WR/WSECTION A-A4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseMARKET STREET(PRIVATE)Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseHardscapesetback areaLandscape in 10'10'SetbackWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegrates30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future68'34'24'34'24'10'R/WR/WSECTION A-A4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseMARKET STREET(PRIVATE)Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseHardscapesetback areaLandscape in 10'10'SetbackWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegrates30% Max.30% Max.Proposed FutureDNUP*****88'54'10'44'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'34'21'13'R/WR/WMARKET STREET4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)13'24'8'20'45° DIAGONALPARKINGPARKINGResidentialResidential1st FloorRetail UseLandscape in Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 1st FloorRetail UseDOUBLELANESINGLELANESECTION B-B(PRIVATE)HardscapePARALLELWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegratessetback area30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future88'54'10'44'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'34'21'13'R/WR/WMARKET STREET4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)13'24'8'20'45° DIAGONALPARKINGPARKINGResidentialResidential1st FloorRetail UseLandscape in Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 1st FloorRetail UseDOUBLELANESINGLELANESECTION B-B(PRIVATE)HardscapePARALLELWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegratessetback area30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future66'43'10'33'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WR/WSECTION C-C13'13'20'Park SiteHardscape with parkway1st FloorRetail Use5'PORTION OF MARKET STREET(PRIVATE)23'Residential5'5' Sidewalk5' Parkway45° DIAGONALPARKINGLandscape in setback area30% Max.trees in tree gratesProposed 66'43'10'33'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WR/WSECTION C-C13'13'20'Park SiteHardscape with parkway1st FloorRetail Use5'PORTION OF MARKET STREET(PRIVATE)23'Residential5'5' Sidewalk5' Parkway45° DIAGONALPARKINGLandscape in setback area30% Max.trees in tree gratesProposed 0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA BFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C1TECHNICAL SITE PLAN*····
13'11'11'11'11'11'11'13'26'7'6'18'7'6'4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)ResidentialPotential 1st FloorRetail UseR/WR/W13'46'46'13'118'144'SidewalkParkwaySetbackMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel LanesSidewalkParkwayKATELLA AVENUE(PUBLIC)setback areaHardscape in 80% Max.SECTION E-EProposed 13'11'11'11'11'11'11'13'26'7'6'18'7'6'4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)ResidentialPotential 1st FloorRetail UseR/WR/W13'46'46'13'118'144'SidewalkParkwaySetbackMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel LanesSidewalkParkwayKATELLA AVENUE(PUBLIC)setback areaHardscape in 80% Max.SECTION E-EProposed 62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION D-D13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'WESTSIDE DRIVE AND(PRIVATE)MERIDIAN STREETProposed Existing62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION D-D13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'WESTSIDE DRIVE AND(PRIVATE)MERIDIAN STREETProposed Existing68'34'24'34'24'10'R/WR/WSECTION A-A4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseMARKET STREET(PRIVATE)Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseHardscapesetback areaLandscape in 10'10'SetbackWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegrates30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future68'34'24'34'24'10'R/WR/WSECTION A-A4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseMARKET STREET(PRIVATE)Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)Residential1st FloorRetail UseHardscapesetback areaLandscape in 10'10'SetbackWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegrates30% Max.30% Max.Proposed FutureDNUP*****88'54'10'44'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'34'21'13'R/WR/WMARKET STREET4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)13'24'8'20'45° DIAGONALPARKINGPARKINGResidentialResidential1st FloorRetail UseLandscape in Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 1st FloorRetail UseDOUBLELANESINGLELANESECTION B-B(PRIVATE)HardscapePARALLELWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegratessetback area30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future88'54'10'44'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'34'21'13'R/WR/WMARKET STREET4'10'SetbackPossible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)13'24'8'20'45° DIAGONALPARKINGPARKINGResidentialResidential1st FloorRetail UseLandscape in Hardscapesetback areaLandscape in 1st FloorRetail UseDOUBLELANESINGLELANESECTION B-B(PRIVATE)HardscapePARALLELWith parkway trees in treegratesWith parkway trees in treegratessetback area30% Max.30% Max.Proposed Future66'43'10'33'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WR/WSECTION C-C13'13'20'Park SiteHardscape with parkway1st FloorRetail Use5'PORTION OF MARKET STREET(PRIVATE)23'Residential5'5' Sidewalk5' Parkway45° DIAGONALPARKINGLandscape in setback area30% Max.trees in tree gratesProposed 66'43'10'33'Setback4'Possible 4' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WR/WSECTION C-C13'13'20'Park SiteHardscape with parkway1st FloorRetail Use5'PORTION OF MARKET STREET(PRIVATE)23'Residential5'5' Sidewalk5' Parkway45° DIAGONALPARKINGLandscape in setback area30% Max.trees in tree gratesProposed 0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA BFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C2CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN*
DNUP*****0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA BFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C3PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN*
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
12/23/21 L-1
19
19
15
14
10
5
111317 45151112121915
47
2
81338 3 3588196
9 13 847
7
16
16
16
17
6
18
13
13
8
1
7
19
15
4
LEGEND
TREE LEGEND
Corner Plaza at Market with 18” ht. Wall and
Seating
Market Entry Plaza
Enhanced Paving
Resident Lobby Access
Existing Offsite Streetscapes - Not a Part
Raised Planter
Decorative Planter Pot
Outdoor Seating
Leasing Office and Resident Services Access
Private Patio with Low Walls
(3’ Max. in Setback)
Private Patio and Raised Planter Walls
(3’ Max. in Setback)
Enhanced Paving in Parkway at Loading Area
Utility Screening Hedge
Utility Screening Fence (Removable)
(Refer to Sheet L-8)
Raised Planter Wall (3’ Max. in Setback)
Ventilation Shaft Wall (3’ Max.)
with Landscape Screening
Wire Trellis and Vines on Wall
Existing Offsite Katella Avenue Streetscape
Sight Triangle Area. No Visual Obstructions
Above 24” in Height
Canopy Tree
Vertical Accent
Vertical Evergreen
Flowering Accent
Specimen Tree
Existing Offsite Street Trees - Not a Part
(for Reference Only )
Phoenix dactylifera/Date Palm
Ginkgo biloba/Ginkgo Tree
Refer to Sheet L-4 for Onsite Tree Options.
MARKET STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVEE KATELLA AVENUEMERIDIAN STREET5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4
8
3
6
7
2
1
LANDSCAPE PLAN
GROUND LEVEL
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
CO-WORKING REST-
ROOMS
CLUB-
ROOM
L-2
Overhead Trellis with Seating/Work
Stations
Ramp to Raised Pool Deck (+30”)
Pool Fence
Spa Backdrop and Planter Wall
Spa – 180 sf (20’x9’)
Artificial Turf
Pool – 1480 sf (74’x20’)
Wood Accent Decking
Overhead Trellis with Chaise Lounges
Clubroom Outdoor Cooking Area
Fitness Room Breakout Space with
Overhead Trellis
Seating Area with Fire Pits
Overhead Trellis with Soft Seating
and Wood Accent Decking
Low Wall with Decorative Panels
Seating Area with BBQ and Dining Table
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
4
8
3
6
667
7
2
1
2
3
4
5
893
91011 8
1
13
12
15
13
14
2
12
3
MARKET STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVEE KATELLA AVENUEMERIDIAN STREETLEGEND
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LEVEL 3
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET L-3
Overhead Trellis to Match Architecture
Deck with Dining Tables
Raised Planter
Drink Rail with Seating
Fire Pit and Soft Seating5
4
3
2
1
LEVEL 3 PODIUM
REC AREA BELOW
LEVEL 6
ROOF
MARKET STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVEE KATELLA AVENUEMERIDIAN STREETLEGEND
4
2 1
5 33
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LEVEL 7
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET L-4
PALM TREES
TREES SHRUBS
GROUNDCOVERVINES / ESPALIERS
CANOPY TREES
VERTICAL ACCENT
VERTICAL EVERGREEN
FLOWERING ACCENT
SPECIMEN TREE
PROPOSED PLANTING LIST
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ / Desert Museum Palo Verde (VL)
Cinnamomum camphora / Camphor Tree (M)
Cupaniopsis anacardiodes / Carrotwood Tree (M)
Magnolia grandiflora / Southern Magnolia (M)
Platanus acerifolia / London Plane Tree (M)
Prosopis alba / Mesquite (L)
Quercus virginiana / Southern Live Oak (M)
Rhus lancea / African Somac (L)
Ulmus parvifolia / Chinese Elm (M)
Phoenix dactylifera / Date Palm (L)
Washingtonia robusta / Mexican Fan Palm (L)
Botanical Name / Common Name (WUCOLS)
(WUCOLS)(WUCOLS)
(WUCOLS)
Botanical Name / Common NameBotanical Name / Common Name
Botanical Name / Common Name
Bambusa sp. / Bamboo (Clumping variaties only) (M)
Tristania conferta / Brisbane Box (M)
Pinus canariensis / Canary Island Pine (L)
Pinus halepensis / Afghan Pine (L)
Pinus pinea / Stone Pine (L)
Bauhinia variegata / Purple Orchid Tree (M)
Jacaranda mimosifolia / Jacaranda (M)
Lagerstroemia indica / Crape Myrtle(M)
Pyrus calleryana / Bradford Pear (M)
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ / Desert Museum Palo Verde (VL)
Erythrina caffra / Coral Tree(L)
Olea europea / Olive (L)
Bougainvillea sp./ NCN (L)
Calliandra haematocephala/ Pink Powder Puff (M)
Pandorea jasminoides/ Bower Vine (M)
Podocarpus gracilor/ Fern Pine (M)
Stephanotis floribunda/ Madagascar Jasmine (M)
Trachelospermum jasminoides/ Star Jasmine (M)
Bougainvillea sp./ NCN (L)
Carex divulsa/ Berkeley Sedge (L)
Carissa m. ‘Green Carpet’/ Natal Plum (L)
Dianella revoluta ‘Little Rev’/ Dianella(L)
Festuca sp./ Fescue (L)
Lantana sp./ Lantana(L)
Lonicera j. ‘Halliana’/ Honeysuckle (L)
Myoporum ‘Pacificum’/ NCN (L)
Rosmarinus o. ‘Prostratus’/ Prostrate Rosemary (L)
Senecio sp./ NCN (M)
Trachelospermum jasminoides/ Star Jasmine (M)
NOTE:
WUCOLS Region 3 (South Coastal)
Agapanthus sp./ Lily of the Nile (M)
Agave sp./ Agave (VL)
Aloe sp./ Aloe (L)
Anigozanthos sp./ Kangaroo Paw (M)
Bougainvillea sp./Bougainvillea (L)
Buxus sp./ Boxwood (M)
Callistemon viminalis ‘Little John’/ Dwarf Callistemon (L)
Carissa macrocarpa ‘Tuttle’/ Dwarf Natal Plum (L)
Ceanothus ‘Frosty Blue’/ California Lilac (L)
Cistus x. purpureus/ Orchid Rockrose (L)
Cordyline sp./ NCN (M/L)
Dianella sp./ Flax Lily (L)
Dietes sp./ Fortnight Lily (L)
Dodonaea v. purpurea/ Purple Hopseed Bush (L)
Euonymus sp./ Euonymus (M)
Festuca mairei/ Atlas Fescue (L)
Hemerocallis sp./ Daylily (M)
Hesperaloe parviflora/ Red Yucca (VL)
Heteromeles arbutifolia/ Toyon (VL)
Laurus nobilis/ Sweet Boy (L)
Lavandula sp./ Lavender (L)
Leucophyllum sp./ Purple Sage (L)
Ligustrum j. ‘Texanum’ / Texas Privet (M)
Lomandra sp./ NCN (M/L)
Muhlenbergia sp/ Deer Grass (M/L)
Nassella tenuissima/ Mexican Feather Grass (L)
Olea europaea ‘Little Ollie’/ Little Ollie Olive (L)
Osmanthus fragrans/ Osmanthus (M)
Philodendron sp./ Philodendron (M)
Phormium sp./ New Zealand Flax (L)
Photinia x. fraseri/ Fraser’s Photinia (M)
Pittosporum sp./ Mock Orange (M)
Podocarpus macrophyllus/ Yew Pine (M)
Rhaphiolepis sp./ Indian Hawthorne (L)
Rosa floribunda ‘Iceberg’/ Iceberg Rose (M)
Rosmarinus sp./ Rosemary (L)
Salvia greggii/Autumn Sage (L)
Westringia sp./ Rosemary (L)
Xylosma congestum/ Shiny Xylosma (L)
Yucca sp./ Yucca (L/VL)
MASTER PLANT LIST
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET L-5
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 7
LEGEND
IRRIGATION DATA
Planting Area
Pool / Spa
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION NARRATIVE – PARCEL B – A-TOWN
THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION DESIGN INCLUDES SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WATER
RESOURCES AS FOLLOWS:
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE POTABLE WATER, PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RECYCLED WATER WILL BECOME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE
DESIGNED TO REFLECT RECYCLED WATER USE, UTILIZING APPROPRITATE COLORED PIPING AND
EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION.
THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THE LANDSCAPE IS DIVIDED INTO IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WITH DIFFERING WATER REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON THE PLANT MATERIAL, SLOPE, SOLAR ORIENTATION AND IRRIGATION APPLICATION TYPE.
NO TURF GRASS HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO CONSERVE WATER.
SHRUB AND GROUND COVERS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY IN-LINE
EMITTER DRIP TUBING WITH A UNIFORM SPACING OF EMITTERS AND TUBING
SPACING, INSTALLED ON GRADE BELOW THE MULCH SURFACE. THE DRIP SYSTEMS
ARE SERVED BY VALVES EQUIPPED WITH BASKET FILTERS AND PRESSURE
REGULATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE IRRIGATION: TREES LARGER THAN 24” BOX SIZEWILL RECEIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION FROM SEPARATE VALVE(S) UTILIZING HIGH EFFICIENCY
SQUARE MICRO SPRAY NOZZLES. TREES SMALLER THAT 24” SIZE WILL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL POINT SOURCE EMITTERS FROM THE ADJACENT DRIP TUBING.
THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION WILL INCLUDE A MASTER VALVE AND A FLOW SENSOR TO ALLOW THE
CONTROLLER TO DETECT AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF LATERAL OR PRESSURE
SUPPLY LINE PIPING BREAKS.
PLANTINGS WILL BE GROUPED BY THEIR WATER CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE LATEST WUCOLS IV
CLASSIFICATIONS.
THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WILL INCORPORATE SMART WATER APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY (SWAT)
THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST IRRIGATION RUM TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO INCORPORATE A RAIN SHUT OF DEVICE.
UTILIZING THESE COMPONENTS AND IRRIGATION METHODOLOGY THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED
WATER USE WILL MEET THE ALLOTMENT REQUIREMENT PER THE CURRENT CITY OF ANAHEIM WELO
ORDINANCE.
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Total MAWA = (Eto) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA in Sq.ft.)+(0.3xSLA in Sq.ft.)
Hydrozone:Eto:KL LA Sq. Ft.Conversion SLA Sq. Ft.MAWA
Landscaped Area 49.7 0.55 29,886 0.62 29,971 783,556.88
Recycled
Water
Estimated Annual Water Use:
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE)
Hydrozone:Eto:KL Sq. Ft.Conversion IE EAWU
Low Water Use 49.7 0.2 8,468 0.62 0.8 65,232
Medium Water Use 49.7 0.5 19,758 0.62 0.8 375,820
High Water Use 49.7 0.7 0 0.62 0.0 0
High (Water Feature)49.7 1.0 1,660 0.62 1.0 51,151
Total EAWU:29,886 492,203
Landscape Irrigation Water Use
Project Name: Parcel B - A-Town
Date: September 27, 2021
MARKET STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVEE KATELLA AVENUEMERIDIAN STREETIRRIGATION PLAN40’80’20’0’
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET 40’80’20’0’L-6
LEGEND
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity
Complying Balconies (L3-L7)
Outdoor Rec-Leisure Area
LEVEL 1
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 4
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 3
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 5
1”=40’-0”
REC-LEISURE PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
RECREATION-LEISURE AREA SUMMARY
Total: 56,865 sf
Required: 54,000 sf
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity 10,964 sf
Complying Balconies (L3-L7) *15,180 sf
Outdoor Rec-Leisure Area 30,721 sf
40’80’20’0’
* Private patio and balcony dimensions vary per unit type based on location in the building. The private
patios and balconies noted on these plans are compliant with the following minimum area and dimension
requirements per section 18.20.16:
• Private patio ground floor: 100sf minimum and 8’ minimun dimension
• Private balcony above ground floor: 70sf minimum and 7’ minimum dimension
L-7
CO-WORKING
CLUBROOM
FITNESS
LEASING
PET SPA
MAIL RM
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -3RD SUBMITTAL A1REC & LEISURE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 09/28/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1" = 50'-0"2LEVEL 3 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"1LEVEL 1 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"3LEVEL 4 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"4LEVEL 5 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"5LEVEL 6 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"6LEVEL 7 - REC & LEISURE
REC & LEISURE AREA - BALCONIES
Level Name Area
LEVEL 3 DECK (COMPLYING)3,349 SF
LEVEL 4 DECK (COMPLYING)3,575 SF
LEVEL 5 DECK (COMPLYING)3,402 SF
LEVEL 6 DECK (COMPLYING)3,402 SF
LEVEL 7 DECK (COMPLYING)1,452 SF
Grand total: 157 15,180 SF
INDOOR REC & LEISURE AMENITY
Level Name Area
LEVEL 1 FITNESS 2,104 SF
LEVEL 1 LEASING 1,974 SF
LEVEL 1 MAIL RM 902 SF
LEVEL 1 PET SPA 961 SF
LEVEL 3 CLUBROOM 1,398 SF
LEVEL 3 CO-WORKING 1,518 SF
LEVEL 3 JANITOR CL 71 SF
LEVEL 3 MEP 72 SF
LEVEL 3 RESTROOM 537 SF
LEVEL 3 SHOWER 91 SF
LEVEL 7 AMENITY 1,334 SF
10,964 SF
LEGEND
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity
Complying Balconies (L3-L7)
Outdoor Rec-Leisure Area
LEVEL 6
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 7
1”=40’-0”
REC-LEISURE PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
KEYMAP
MARKET STREET
WESTSIDE DRIVEE KATELLA AVENUEA
C
B
8
9
7
6
1
4
2
2
3
1
7
6
12/23/21 L-8
LOCATION A
LOCATION C
Pad-mounted Transformer
Clearance Area
(Only Groundcover Allowed)
Landscape Hedge
(Outside of Clearance Area)
Removable Screen Fence
Ivy Wrap by Anaheim Public Utility
on Transformers
Building
Public Sidewalk
Private Patio Wall
Sight Triangle
5
4
8
9
3
7
2
6
1
LEGEND
15 5 1 2
6
9
7
LOCATION B
TRANSFORMER
SCREENING EXHIBIT
DN
UP
UP 0.7%UP 5.0%DN 15.0%DN 10.0%UP 10.0%DN 5.0%DN 2.2%
***************
1
2
4
8
9
12
14
15
16
19
24
27
28
13
1
1
18
24
24
4
16
2
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-1.1BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 1DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 Relocate existing pole.
KEYNOTE
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
IDF
+0"+30"+30"
+30"
+0"
POOL FENCE
3
5
6
7
10
11
16 17
20
21
22
24
26
27
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-1.2BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 3DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
AMENITY
AMENITY
REST RM
ROOFTOP WALKING SURFACE
FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY
LOW ROOF
LOW ROOF
OPEN TO PODIUM
BELOWLOW ROOF
UP
FIRE ROOFTOP STAIR ACCESS
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
23
25
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-1.3BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 7DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
DN
UP
UP 0.7%UP 5.0%DN 15.0%DN 10.0%UP 10.0%DN 5.0%DN 2.2%
***************
0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.4
0.8 1.2 2.2 3.1 2.9
0.9 1.5 2.9 4.6 4.2
0.8 1.1 1.8 2.4 2.3
0.8 0.9 1.2 1.4
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
0.9 1.0 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.2 4.3 7.7 9.3
1.0 1.4 2.1 2.8 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.3 2.5 5.4 10.4 0.4
1.2 1.8 3.3 4.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.3 4.7 8.6 10.5
1.1 1.5 2.4 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.9 4.3 5.4
1.0 1.2 1.6 1.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.5
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.2
1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7
1.3 1.8 3.0 3.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1.4 2.1 3.7 4.9 3.9 2.1 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.6 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
1.3 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.3 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 9.6 6.6 3.4 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3
1.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.8 7.0 15.0 19.6 17.1 10.0 4.1 2.4 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.3 5.2 13.1 17.6 15.2 8.1 2.0 0.9 1.0 3.3 10.9 16.8 16.5 10.2 3.3 1.9 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.5 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.9 8.8 15.2 14.4 10.0 5.8 2.7 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.0 7.2 14.0 18.8 18.4 13.8 7.5 4.0 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.6 6.0 12.9 16.7 14.8 8.7 2.5 1.0 1.2 4.2 11.5 17.0 16.7 11.0 4.2 2.4 3.9 5.9 6.6 5.3 3.0 1.5 1.2 2.1 9.7 14.9 14.3 10.3 6.2 3.1 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3
1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.7 4.9 9.4 12.9 14.3 12.4 7.8 3.9 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.4 4.4 9.1 11.7 10.3 6.2 2.0 1.0 1.2 3.4 8.6 12.2 12.0 8.4 3.4 2.0 3.8 6.7 7.7 5.7 2.7 1.2 1.1 1.7 5.8 10.1 10.3 8.0 5.2 2.7 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3
1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.6 4.7 6.0 5.0 3.0 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 2.3 4.7 6.3 5.4 3.0 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.9 4.6 6.8 6.8 4.5 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.4 4.7 5.8 4.9 3.3 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3
1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
2.2 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
2.8 6.1 9.6 11.0 9.4 6.8 6.3 8.7 10.9 10.5 8.0 6.0 7.1 9.8
2.1 4.5 7.2 8.4 7.0 5.1 4.8 6.4 8.2 7.9 5.9 4.6 5.2 7.3 8.3
1.4 2.7 3.9 4.5 4.0 3.2 3.1 3.8 4.6 4.4 3.6 3.0 3.3 4.1 4.5 3.7 2.4
1.2 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.2 2.8 1.9
1.6 3.1 4.6 5.2 4.6 3.8 3.6 4.4 5.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.9 4.8 5.2 4.4 2.8
2.4 5.1 7.9 8.9 7.8 5.7 5.4 7.2 8.9 8.7 6.7 5.1 6.0 8.0 8.9 7.4 4.5
2.9 6.3 9.8 11.5 9.6 7.1 6.6 8.9 11.3 10.9 8.3 6.3 7.4 10.1 11.4 9.3 5.6
2.7 6.0 9.5 10.9 9.3 6.7 6.2 8.6 10.7 10.4 8.0 5.9 7.0 9.7 10.9 9.0 5.4
2.0 4.3 6.8 8.0 6.6 4.8 4.6 6.1 7.8 7.5 5.6 4.4 5.0 7.0 7.9 6.4 3.8
1.3 2.4 3.6 4.1 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.0 3.2 2.7 3.0 3.7 4.0 3.4 2.2
1.0 1.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.3 1.6
14.4 13.3 11.9 11.3 10.4 8.2 1.3 2.5 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.0 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.3
15.9 14.1 14.0 14.9 13.6 8.7 2.1 4.4 6.8 7.8 6.7 5.0 4.8 6.3 7.8 7.5 5.8 4.6 5.2 7.0 7.7 6.4 3.9
14.1 13.2 14.9 17.7 17.8 12.1 2.8 6.0 9.4 10.9 9.2 6.8 6.4 8.5 10.8 10.4 7.9 6.0 7.1 9.6 10.9 8.8 4.6 2.9 1.4 0.8
13.5 13.3 15.6 19.6 20.5 14.3 2.8 6.3 9.9 11.5 9.7 7.0 6.6 9.0 11.3 10.9 8.3 6.2 7.4 10.1 11.3 9.3 2.6 1.8 1.1 0.7
12.7 11.8 13.3 16.4 16.8 11.3 2.2 5.0 8.1 9.2 7.9 5.7 5.3 7.2 9.1 8.7 6.5 4.8 5.7 8.1 9.1 7.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.7
12.1 9.5 9.1 10.1 9.2 4.9 1.4 2.9 4.6 5.5 4.8 3.8 3.4 4.0 4.9 4.6 3.6 2.9 3.2 4.2 4.8 3.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
11.7 8.1 5.6 4.5 3.5 2.3 0.8 1.7 3.4 5.1 5.0 3.7 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
11.6 8.0 5.2 4.1 3.1 2.1 0.7 2.3 8.3 10.3 8.6 5.9 3.3 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7
11.9 8.9 7.8 8.3 7.1 3.6 0.8 4.6 13.4 14.8 11.5 7.4 4.2 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8
12.3 10.9 12.1 14.6 14.8 9.6 0.7 4.7 13.7 15.0 11.7 7.4 4.2 1.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9
12.7 12.3 14.4 18.3 19.2 13.3 0.5 2.2 8.4 10.2 8.5 5.6 3.0 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2
12.5 11.4 12.9 16.0 16.6 11.1 0.3 0.8 2.1 3.8 3.8 2.7 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4
11.9 9.2 8.9 10.0 9.3 4.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5
11.1 7.3 4.9 4.2 3.2 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6
8.7 5.8 3.8 2.9 2.2 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.7
1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.9 4.1 2.2 0.3 0.8 2.4 4.3 4.2 2.9 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.4
1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 2.5 4.7 8.2 11.1 11.3 6.5 0.6 2.4 9.0 10.7 8.8 5.8 3.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 3.3 7.0 7.5 4.6 1.9 0.4 2.4 3.6 2.4 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.1 2.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.6 3.2 4.4 3.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 0.9
0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 2.2 5.8 10.9 15.9 17.4 12.0 0.8 4.8 13.9 15.2 11.8 7.5 4.2 1.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.6 9.7 16.0 17.0 13.2 6.0 0.6 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.9 3.3 4.8 4.0 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.4 3.9 4.8 3.4 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.6 6.1 12.7 14.4 10.2 3.4 1.4 1.1 1.6 4.8 12.1 14.7 11.2 4.2 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.5
0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 2.0 5.6 10.7 15.9 17.5 12.2 0.8 4.4 13.1 14.5 11.3 7.2 4.0 1.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 3.8 11.4 17.8 19.1 16.8 9.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 4.4 11.5 15.2 12.8 6.0 3.0 2.9 5.9 12.6 15.1 11.6 4.4 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 3.6 10.0 16.4 18.5 13.7 6.1 1.9 1.5 2.5 8.4 15.5 18.5 14.6 7.3 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.1
0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.5 3.6 7.6 11.0 11.6 7.0 0.6 1.9 7.2 9.3 7.8 5.2 2.8 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 3.3 9.1 13.6 14.9 14.4 9.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 2.5 7.6 14.9 18.8 16.0 9.5 4.2 4.2 9.5 15.8 18.7 14.8 7.5 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 3.9 9.5 14.4 15.7 12.2 6.2 2.2 1.7 3.0 7.8 13.3 15.7 12.7 7.1 2.5 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.2
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.7 3.1 4.5 4.4 3.0 0.4 0.8 1.8 3.0 3.1 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.9 5.2 8.1 9.0 8.6 5.2 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.9 7.7 13.1 16.0 14.1 9.4 4.8 4.9 9.3 13.9 15.8 13.0 7.7 2.9 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.4 6.8 10.0 10.7 8.4 4.4 2.1 2.0 2.5 5.4 8.8 10.3 8.6 4.9 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.1 0.8
0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.4 3.7 5.6 7.4 6.2 2.2 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.3 3.0 4.2 2.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 2.1 8.0 12.7 11.1 5.1 1.3 0.6 0.9 3.3 10.6 12.4 8.7 3.5 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.9 3.2 3.6 3.2 1.7 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.9 5.9 9.4 11.2 10.2 7.4 4.5 4.3 7.1 9.9 10.9 9.2 5.8 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.9 4.0 5.7 6.3 4.5 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.9 4.6 5.5 4.5 2.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.7 3.2 5.6 8.8 12.1 12.9 6.6 1.7 1.8 4.5 8.1 7.2 3.1 1.9 4.6 11.6 14.4 11.4 4.2 1.2 1.2 4.8 13.4 18.5 16.2 9.1 2.6 0.9 1.5 8.1 16.3 17.8 12.8 6.5 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.9 5.9 7.2 6.6 5.1 3.7 3.6 4.9 6.3 6.7 5.5 3.8 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.5
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.0 3.7 6.2 9.7 13.2 14.0 9.3 2.7 4.1 9.3 13.9 14.2 9.0 3.5 7.7 14.3 17.4 14.2 7.0 1.9 1.4 4.8 12.3 16.8 15.0 9.0 2.8 1.0 1.6 7.9 14.7 16.2 12.2 6.6 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.2 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.9 3.5 5.7 8.3 10.6 11.0 7.5 3.5 5.5 9.8 13.7 13.8 9.8 4.6 7.4 12.0 14.4 11.8 6.5 1.9 1.2 2.8 7.7 10.6 9.9 5.8 1.8 0.8 1.1 3.9 9.0 10.4 8.3 4.5 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.7 2.8 4.3 5.9 7.1 7.0 5.7 5.8 5.0 7.9 10.4 10.2 7.5 3.8 5.1 8.0 9.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.7 2.9 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.1 3.6 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 3.6 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.8 3.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 2.5 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.2 6.1 8.8 3.7 4.7 2.5 2.7 4.2 4.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 7.5 4.8 2.4 1.7 1.9 3.1 6.5 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.6 6.3 3.0 2.1 2.4 4.5 7.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 7.7 4.0 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.1 3.1 6.2 9.5 2.2 2.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 9.0 5.5 2.7 1.8 2.0 3.4 7.5 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.2 7.1 3.3 2.2 2.6 5.1 9.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 9.0 4.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 2.4 4.8 6.7 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 6.8 4.5 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.9 5.8 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 5.4 2.8 1.9 2.2 4.1 6.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.6 2.7 2.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.2 2.7 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 2.7 1.8 1.4 1.6 2.3 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.2 2.1 5.3 7.9 7.3 4.2 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.1 5.3 8.9 9.6 6.5 2.8 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 2.5 4.8 6.5 6.2 4.0 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 2.4 4.0 5.5 5.8 4.4 2.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.3 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6
0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9
1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0
1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0
1.6 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1
1.2 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2
1.3 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2
1.6 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3
1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3
1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4
0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.4 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
1.8 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
1.6 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
1.4
1.7 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1
1.6 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7
1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9
0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2
0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.7
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.7
3.9 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.9
6.3 3.6 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.5 3.8
7.7 4.0 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.7 4.2
3.7 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2
2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3
2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3
2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2
2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9
1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5
0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0
0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4
0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6
0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.8
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.5
1.8 1.5
1.7 1.1
1.6 1.1
1.8 1.3
1.8 1.5
1.6 1.5
1.4 1.3
1.1 1.2
0.9 1.2 1.2
0.9 1.1 1.0
0.9 1.0 0.9
0.9 0.9 0.8
1.1 1.0 0.8
1.7 1.2 0.8
2.7 1.6 1.0
4.1 2.0 1.1
10.7 4.1 9.6 4.7 2.2 1.1
7.7 9.0 7.0 3.8 1.9 1.0
2.3 1.4 0.8
1.3 0.9 0.6
0.8 0.6 0.5
0.7 0.5 0.5
0.7 0.6 0.5
0.9 0.7 0.5
1.6 1.1 0.7
2.9 1.7 1.0
5.1 2.5 1.2
6.5 2.9 1.4
6.9 9.8 9.1 5.4 2.6 1.3
3.3 1.9 1.1
1.8 1.3 0.9
1.2 0.9 0.7
1.0 0.9 0.7
1.2 1.0 0.8
1.6 1.2 1.0
2.3 1.5 1.2
2.9 1.8 1.4
5.2 9.9 11.7 10.2 5.6 3.1 2.0 1.6
3.9 6.3 7.6 6.5 4.3 2.8 2.1 1.9
2.1 2.0
2.1 2.1
2.0 1.8
1.6 1.3
1.5 0.9
1.5 1.1
1.7 1.5
2.1 1.9
1.9 1.7 1.1
2.0 1.6 0.9
1.9 1.6 1.1
1.9 1.8 1.4
1.8 1.8 1.5
1.7 1.6 1.7
1.6 1.5 1.7
1.7 1.5 1.7
2.3 1.9 1.8
3.9 2.8 2.0
7.1 4.2 2.4
9.8 5.1 2.5
8.5 4.5 2.3
4.7 3.0 1.7
2.3 1.7 1.1
1.2 1.0 0.8
0.7 0.6 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.4
0.4 0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
4.0 4.9 4.8 3.6 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.7 4.1 4.7 4.0 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.8 5.0 4.2 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
6.6 9.3 9.1 6.2 3.3 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 2.2 4.5 8.0 9.5 7.5 4.2 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 3.4 5.4 7.7 8.6 7.4 5.3 3.7 2.9 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.6 4.1 6.0 6.8 5.9 4.0 2.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 2.5 4.1 5.7 6.1 4.8 3.0 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.9 3.2 4.7 5.4 4.6 3.2 1.9 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.6 4.1 5.2 5.1 3.9 2.4 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.2 3.6 4.7 4.9 3.9 2.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.7 2.8 4.0 4.8 4.3 3.1 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.3 4.6 5.6 5.7 4.6 3.1 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.5 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.4 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
8.5 12.1 12.1 8.1 4.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.5 5.5 10.7 1.0 9.9 5.0 2.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.6 2.4 3.9 6.5 10.1 8.6 10.0 6.7 4.3 3.1 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.8 3.0 5.2 8.4 8.1 8.6 5.2 2.8 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.6 3.1 5.8 9.1 8.5 6.9 3.9 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.5 4.6 7.6 8.4 7.4 4.5 2.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.8 3.5 6.2 8.4 8.4 5.9 3.3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.6 3.0 5.5 7.9 8.1 6.2 3.6 1.9 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 2.2 4.1 6.7 8.0 7.2 4.7 2.7 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.5 4.2 6.8 8.8 8.9 6.9 4.5 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.1 3.1 4.8 6.6 7.1 5.8 3.7 2.1 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.8 3.2 5.0 6.0 5.5 4.3 2.6 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
10.1 6.9 3.7 3.8 2.6 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.7 3.3 6.1 7.4 3.4 7.0 3.9 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.5 4.7 7.9 0.2 8.4 5.4 2.9 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.6 2.7 4.8 8.1 7.9 9.9 8.0 5.2 3.6 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.3 3.6 6.0 9.4 8.0 7.9 4.6 2.5 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 2.2 4.2 7.2 7.5 9.1 7.0 3.8 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5
6.1 4.4 2.8 7.4 4.4 6.8 3.2 10.2 9.5 4.8 2.6 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6
3.2 2.6 2.1 9.5 6.0 4.8 5.8 10.0 10.6 5.6 3.4 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
2.0 1.8 1.6 9.6 5.6 2.8 3.3 7.7 10.1 7.8 6.4 4.1 1.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
1.5 1.3 1.3 5.9 3.8 1.5 1.9 5.1 10.2 11.5 11.2 8.1 3.5 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
1.2 1.1 1.1 3.2 2.4 0.9 1.3 3.6 10.5 15.4 16.2 11.8 5.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.9 3.3 2.4 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.1 2.1 2.0 0.6 0.9 2.7 10.0 16.7 18.1 12.7 4.8 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.4 3.0 4.8 5.8 5.6 5.5 6.3 6.8 5.6 3.6 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2
0.9 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.7 5.5 11.9 13.2 8.5 2.4 1.3 4.3 8.5 10.4 9.0 7.3 7.5 6.8 7.4 4.5 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
0.9 1.3 1.8 3.5 5.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.7 4.8 7.2 8.0
0.9 1.6 2.6 5.6 9.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.3 3.8 5.6 6.6
0.8 1.6 2.7 7.0 8.8
6.6 10.1
6.0 7.6
5.2 6.0
6.6 3.9
5.9 3.7
4.4 3.0
3.1 2.4
2.5 2.2
2.5 2.3
2.8 2.6
3.5 3.0
4.8 3.6
6.9 4.6
8.5 5.5
8.3 5.4
6.2 4.4
3.9 3.1
2.5 2.1
1.7 1.6
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.3 1.1
1.6 1.2
1.6 1.6 2.1 3.3 4.7 5.4 4.8 3.4 2.1 1.4
2.5 2.2 2.8 4.6 7.3 8.2 7.5 4.6 2.6 1.5
2.6 1.5
2.2 1.3
1.6 1.1
1.1 0.8
2.0 1.8
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.3
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.0
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.2
0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9
0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.0
0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.9 3.9 4.7
0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.3 3.7 6.0 8.0 7.8 5.8 3.7 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.5 4.2 5.5 5.3 3.7 2.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.9 4.4 5.6 5.2
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.5 4.5 8.6 12.8 12.7 7.8 4.2 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 3.6 7.1 10.5 10.0 6.1 3.0 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.8 3.0 4.7 5.6 4.6 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.4 4.2 7.2 10.4 9.6
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.3 4.4 8.5 1.4 2.3 4.7 8.3 10.7
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.9 3.2 1.5 2.6 5.5 9.4 2.3
0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.3 4.5 7.9 10.0
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.9 4.4 5.1
0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.5
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6
0.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 2.0 2.9 3.4 2.8 1.9 1.8 3.0 3.6 2.9 1.8
0.3 0.5 0.9 1.7 3.4 6.1 7.4 5.6 3.8 6.3 7.3 5.9 3.2
0.3 0.6 1.0 2.2 4.8 9.4 9.8 6.4 10.5 12.0 9.7 5.2
8.0 14.1 16.3 12.7
6.6 13.7 16.2 12.2
2.2 6.3 8.3 5.2
2.7 5.9 10.9
2.2 4.2 7.0
1.5 2.5 3.5
1.1 1.6 2.0
1.0 1.5 1.8
1.3 2.1 2.9
1.8 3.5 5.6
2.4 5.0 9.6
2.5 5.4 10.3
2.0 4.1 7.3
1.5 2.5 3.8
1.1 1.6 2.0
0.9 1.3 1.6
1.1 1.7 2.3
1.6 2.8 4.4
2.1 4.4 8.1
2.4 5.2 10.2
2.1 4.5 8.4
3.0 4.7
1.9 2.6
1.7 2.2
2.2 3.3
3.4 6.0
4.5 9.0 10.4
4.5 8.9 11.1
3.3 5.9 7.5
2.1 3.2 3.7
1.6 2.1 2.4
1.7 2.4 2.9
2.5 4.1 5.4 1.2 2.8 5.1 5.8 3.7 1.1
3.5 7.0 10.4 2.5 6.5 10.8 13.4 11.3 3.5
4.1 8.5 9.8 3.7 8.6 14.3 18.0 15.6 5.8
3.6 7.1 10.5 3.6 8.0 12.7 15.9 13.5 4.6
2.8 4.7 6.3 5.9 4.2 2.6 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.9 3.3 5.5 8.3 9.5 6.7 2.0
2.3 3.7 5.1 5.3 4.2 2.7 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.4 2.3 3.8 5.1 5.0 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 2.4 3.9 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.3 5.2 5.0 3.1 1.3
2.4 4.4 7.2 8.2 6.2 3.6 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 3.4 6.7 10.0 9.7 6.0 3.1 1.9 2.0 3.4 6.7 10.2 10.3 7.7 7.6 9.7 10.7 7.8 2.3
2.6 5.4 10.3 9.8 10.6 14.1 16.9 14.3 5.0
2.5 5.3 10.0 10.4 8.3 10.7 15.0 18.3 15.7 5.8
3.8 6.5 7.7 4.8 7.5 11.0 13.0 10.7 3.1
2.3 3.4 3.9 2.3 3.2 4.7 5.1 3.2 1.0
1.6 2.1 2.5
1.5 2.1 2.8
1.8 3.1 4.8
2.2 4.6 8.6
2.4 5.2 10.2 0.3
4.3 8.0 10.0
2.8 4.4 5.2
1.8 2.5 2.8
1.4 2.0 2.5
1.6 2.7 3.9
2.1 4.2 7.2
2.4 5.3 10.3 4.1
2.3 4.9 9.2 11.2
3.4 5.6 6.6
2.0 2.9 3.3
1.4 1.9 2.3
1.3 2.0 2.8
1.6 3.0 4.9
2.0 4.2 8.3 11.0
2.1 4.5 9.1 4.3
3.6 6.8 9.2
2.3 3.8 4.6
1.5 2.1 2.5
1.2 1.8 2.3
1.3 2.2 3.5
1.6 3.2 6.1 8.8
1.8 3.9 8.1 10.6
3.5 7.1 11.7
2.5 4.5 6.2
1.7 2.5 3.2
1.3 1.9 2.4
1.3 2.1 3.1
1.7 3.2 5.5 7.2
2.0 4.2 8.5 11.4
4.3 8.6 11.2
3.2 5.9 8.0
2.1 3.2 4.0
1.5 2.1 2.4
1.4 2.1 2.6
1.8 3.2 4.6
2.5 5.0 8.7
2.9 6.2 11.1
2.6 5.3 9.5
1.9 3.4 5.2
1.4 2.1 2.8
1.2 1.7 2.2
1.4 2.1 3.1
1.8 3.4 5.7
2.2 4.7 9.2
2.3 4.9 9.6
1.9 3.7 6.6 8.2
1.4 2.4 3.6 4.1
1.2 1.7 2.3 2.5
1.2 1.9 2.5 2.8
1.6 2.8 4.4 5.1
2.0 4.2 7.9 9.9
2.3 5.0 9.9 0.3
2.1 4.3 8.2 10.5
1.6 2.9 4.7 5.6
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.9
1.1 1.6 2.2 2.5
1.2 2.0 3.1 3.8
3.0 5.5 7.6
3.9 8.0 12.0
3.9 8.0 12.0
3.0 5.4 7.4
1.9 3.0 3.7
1.5 2.0 2.3
1.5 2.2 2.5
2.2 3.5 4.6
3.1 6.1 8.9
3.8 8.0 11.0
3.6 7.1 11.5
2.6 4.6 6.4
1.9 2.8 3.5
1.7 2.4 2.9
2.0 3.1 4.2
2.8 5.1 7.8
3.4 7.1 12.3
3.4 6.9 12.3
2.6 4.9 7.3
1.8 2.8 3.7
1.2 1.7 2.0
0.9 1.1 1.3
0.7 0.9 1.0
0.6 0.7 0.8
0.5 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.3 0.3
1
2
4
8
9
12
14
15
16
19
24
27
28
13
1
1
18
24
24
4
16
2
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Max/Avg
Area Outside Leasing Office Illuminance Fc 2.40 19.6 0.2 12.00 98.00 8.17
Area Outside Market and Retail Illuminance Fc 3.27 20.5 0.1 32.70 205.00 6.27
Driveway and Side Walks_North Illuminance Fc 1.02 2.7 0.1 10.20 27.00 2.65
Driveway_Northeast Illuminance Fc 1.22 2.4 0.5 2.44 4.80 1.97
Driveway_South Illuminance Fc 2.38 7.7 1.6 1.49 4.81 3.24
Driveway_Southeast Illuminance Fc 0.76 1.8 0.3 2.53 6.00 2.37
Pathway_Building East Illuminance Fc 2.37 11.7 0.5 4.74 23.40 4.94
Pathway_Building Northeast Illuminance Fc 1.73 9.8 0.2 8.65 49.00 5.66
Pathway_Building South Illuminance Fc 2.56 18.1 0.1 25.60 181.00 7.07
Pathway_Building Southeast Illuminance Fc 3.30 8.5 0.8 4.13 10.63 2.58
Pathway_Building Southwest Illuminance Fc 2.74 16.3 0.2 13.70 81.50 5.95
Pathway_Building West Illuminance Fc 4.40 18.3 0.2 22.00 91.50 4.16
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-2.1SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION
PLANS - LVL 1
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
IDF
+0"+30"+30"
+30"
+0"
POOL FENCE
3
5
6
7
10
11
16 17
20
21
22
24
26
27
5.8 5.5 5.1
4.8 11.5 3.7
3.4 9.0 2.4
1.7 3.2 1.6
1.1 1.7 1.4
1.4 3.2 1.3
1.9 8.8 1.7
6.3 10.0 2.4
1.8 4.1 1.8
1.8 4.2 1.9
4.3 10.3 2.2
1.8 8.6 2.2
1.6 4.9 4.8 3.1 1.5 1.5 2.8 4.0 2.8 1.4 1.7 3.6 4.1 2.1 1.1 0.9
1.6 10.3 25.7 7.2 1.3 1.7 10.3 24.8 6.5 1.3 2.0 12.9 22.5 4.6 2.1 2.1
18.3 5.7 1.0
38.6 7.6 1.3
3.8 3.5 1.2
1.2 2.4 1.0
11.7 5.7 1.5
48.9 8.2 1.5
5.5 4.2 1.2
1.1 2.1 1.4
6.0 4.4 1.5
48.8 8.6 2.1
11.5 6.1 2.7
1.3 2.7 2.7
4.2 5.0
1.8 8.9 39.8
1.4 7.2 20.3
1.1 3.0 1.7
1.5 3.4 2.7
1.9 8.1 33.5
1.5 7.3 23.4
1.3 3.0 1.7
1.5 3.6 2.9
1.8 8.3 36.6
1.4 7.0 20.4
1.1 2.8 1.4
1.4 3.4 2.7
1.8 8.1 33.3
1.4 7.1 22.2
1.1 2.9 1.5
1.5 3.3 2.6
2.5 2.5 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.2 2.1 8.1 33.3
24.3 5.9 2.4 5.5 10.7 5.3 2.0 3.8 9.8 7.6 2.8 3.1 8.6 8.8 3.1 1.8 7.2 23.0
26.5 5.7 1.6 2.9 14.0 2.1 2.0 4.6 6.0 7.7 2.7 1.4 2.2
3.0 2.7 1.2
1.4 1.7 1.4
4.2 3.6 4.8
19.7 9.3 26.8
22.0 11.1 26.2
23.4 11.9 30.7
21.8 10.4 27.1
4.0 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.5
4.1 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.9
4.4 4.2 4.1
4.2 4.5 5.0
4.8 5.0 5.0
4.2 4.6 4.9
4.2 4.2 4.2
3.9 3.6 3.5
3.9 3.4 2.9
3.8 3.7 3.5
4.1 4.0 4.0
4.3 4.5 4.6
4.3 4.8 5.1
4.1 4.5 4.9
4.1 4.3 4.2
3.6 3.4 3.2
2.7 2.7 2.3
1.7 1.5 1.3
1.4 1.2 1.0
2.9 1.6 0.9
5.6 1.5 0.8
0.8 2.2 0.9
4.5 7.5 1.7
10.9 10.4 2.1 2.4 11.8 17.3 4.7 2.2 9.0 19.2 6.2 1.7 5.1 17.9 10.9 2.4 3.5 15.5 13.8 2.9 2.4 11.3 17.6 4.9 2.1 8.5 19.5 6.6 2.1 6.7 19.9 9.4 2.5
2.3 4.5 2.1 1.9 3.0 3.4 2.0 1.7 2.4 3.0 2.4 1.4 2.2 3.0 3.1 1.9 1.7 3.1 2.6 1.7 1.8 3.1 3.2 2.1 1.6 2.3 3.3 2.5 1.8 3.3 5.0 4.9 3.8
0.9 3.1 1.5 1.0 2.9 5.4 6.7 6.1
4.2 7.7 1.9 1.3 4.3 8.4 10.6 9.7
11.7 10.5 2.0 1.3 5.5 11.3 14.8 13.5
2.5 4.6 2.4 1.0 4.5 11.5 15.7 14.1
1.3 3.2 4.4 5.3 5.1 2.5 0.8
2.0 4.4 7.1 9.9 11.2 8.4 1.9
2.6 5.2 8.7 12.7 15.0 12.2 3.1
2.4 4.9 8.1 11.7 13.7 10.9 2.6
1.8 3.7 6.1 8.3 8.8 5.4 1.3
1.4 2.8 4.6 5.8 4.9 2.4 1.0
1.8 3.8 6.2 8.5 9.1 5.7 1.4
2.5 5.0 8.2 11.9 13.9 11.1 2.7
2.7 5.3 8.7 12.7 15.0 12.2 3.1
2.1 4.4 7.2 10.1 11.3 8.4 1.9
1.6 3.2 5.2 6.8 6.1 3.1 1.1
1.7 3.4 5.6 7.4 7.2 3.9 1.2
2.3 4.7 7.7 10.9 12.5 9.6 2.3
2.8 5.4 8.9 13.0 15.3 12.5 3.2
2.4 4.9 8.0 11.4 13.1 10.3 2.5
1.8 3.7 6.1 8.1 8.1 4.6 1.3
1.7 3.4 5.6 7.2 6.5 3.3 1.2
2.3 4.6 7.4 10.3 11.5 8.6 2.1
2.8 5.5 8.9 12.9 15.3 12.5 3.4
2.7 5.2 8.5 12.2 14.2 11.5 3.1
2.0 4.1 6.5 8.5 9.2 6.1 2.1
1.6 3.3 3.8
3.6 6.8 2.9
5.8 11.9 3.3
2.8 6.6 3.0
2.2 4.2 3.5 2.9 3.0 3.7 5.1
4.9 8.2 4.3 3.3 3.7 4.5 5.6
4.2 13.6 5.2
4.7 8.5 5.0
4.2 5.2 4.6
4.2 4.1 3.6
3.7 3.3 2.9
3.1 2.8 2.4
2.7 2.4 2.0
2.4 2.1 1.9
2.3 2.1 1.8
2.4 2.2 2.0
2.8 2.6 2.3
3.4 3.2 2.9
4.2 4.0 3.7
5.3 5.0 4.8
5.9 6.0 5.9
5.9 6.2 6.3
6.1 6.3 6.4
6.1 6.1 6.0
5.4 5.2 4.9
4.6 4.4 4.1
4.2 3.9 3.6
4.0 3.7 3.4
4.1 3.8 3.5
4.6 4.2 3.9
4.5 4.4 4.3
3.7 3.8 3.9
2.9 3.0 3.0
2.3 2.3 2.3
1.9 1.8 1.7
1.9 1.5 1.3
2.2 1.4 1.1
1.3 8.2 43.0 9.4 1.3 1.4 10.1 43.4 7.9 1.2 2.8 27.3 26.4 2.9 1.2 5.2 38.9 14.5 1.5 1.2 10.1 44.2 14.1 29.0
2.8 4.6 7.7 4.9 2.6 3.2 6.5 8.8 4.8 2.2 3.0 6.7 7.2 4.0 3.1 4.3 7.5 5.2 2.2 2.2 5.2 9.0 11.3 26.7
3.9 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.9 4.8 6.4 5.8 3.7 1.8 1.8 2.7 4.3 5.6 5.4 4.0 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.1 2.0 3.4 9.8 34.1
6.7 3.2 1.5 1.7 4.7 8.0 9.5 8.5 5.3 2.1 1.3 2.8 6.4 8.6 8.8 6.6 3.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.8 8.7 34.7
9.7 4.6 1.5 1.9 6.3 11.4 14.1 12.1 7.3 2.4 1.3 3.7 9.0 12.9 13.2 9.5 4.2 1.3 1.1 1.8 2.8 3.7 5.6 14.6 24.5 16.2 23.0 15.4 22.7 15.3 22.7 15.3 22.7 15.3 22.7 15.6 22.8 8.2 3.1 1.4 1.0 1.6 3.7 7.8 21.5 13.1 5.3 2.6 1.3 1.1 1.7 3.6 6.8 18.7 16.3 6.2 3.1 1.8 1.9 2.8 5.2 9.8 23.6 13.2 6.1 3.3 2.1 2.1 3.1 6.1 14.4 25.0 16.4 24.7 16.0 23.9 8.9 4.7 6.1 16.1 22.7 17.8 20.1
11.2 4.5 1.3 1.6 6.2 12.8 16.2 13.7 7.5 2.0 1.1 3.4 10.0 15.3 15.7 10.8 4.1 1.5 2.4 4.7 5.7 5.3 4.9 5.4 5.8 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.5 2.8 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.7 4.2 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.6 4.1 4.0 2.5 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.2 4.3 5.6 4.7 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.6 3.5 5.1 6.3 6.1 6.2 5.5 5.2 3.7 3.1 3.6 5.2 6.0 5.8 5.1
8.6 2.4 0.8 0.9 3.1 9.3 12.5 10.2 4.1 1.1 0.8 1.8 6.9 12.3 12.7 7.8 2.3 1.7 5.5 8.9 9.1 7.4 5.6 4.2 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.7
8.6 12.5 11.9 9.0 6.1 4.2 3.6 4.2 5.0 4.7 3.6 3.4 4.4 5.0 4.4 3.6 4.0 4.9 4.8 3.8 3.4 4.3 4.8 4.1 3.4 3.9 4.8 4.7 3.7 3.5 4.4 4.9 4.1 3.5 4.2 5.0 4.8 3.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2
7.6 12.7 11.9 8.7 5.8 4.0 4.0 5.9 7.9 7.4 5.5 5.1 6.8 8.1 6.9 5.5 6.1 7.8 7.7 5.9 5.5 7.0 8.0 6.7 5.4 6.2 7.9 7.6 5.9 5.6 7.2 8.1 6.7 5.6 6.5 8.2 7.5 5.0 2.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9
2.9 7.9 8.4 6.3 4.0 2.8 3.7 6.3 8.8 8.3 6.1 5.7 7.6 9.0 7.7 6.1 6.8 8.8 8.7 6.6 6.2 7.9 9.0 7.5 6.1 6.9 8.9 8.6 6.5 6.3 8.2 9.1 7.5 6.2 7.3 9.2 8.5 5.5 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6
1.1 2.1 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.0 2.8 4.8 6.5 6.1 4.6 4.2 5.6 6.6 5.7 4.6 5.1 6.4 6.3 5.0 4.6 5.9 6.7 5.6 4.6 5.2 6.5 6.3 5.0 4.8 6.1 6.8 5.7 4.7 5.6 6.9 6.4 4.4 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4
1.2 2.6 3.7 3.6 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.7 3.4 3.2 2.4 2.2 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.6 3.3 3.3 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.5 3.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 3.1 3.8 3.6 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
3.2 7.0 7.4 6.1 4.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5
7.5 11.6 11.0 8.3 5.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3
8.8 13.3 12.3 9.0 5.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2
5.4 10.5 10.0 7.6 5.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2
1.6 4.5 5.7 4.8 3.4 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1
1.0 2.0 3.1 3.5 2.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1
1.5 4.6 6.3 5.7 4.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1
4.0 9.6 10.1 8.3 5.9 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.2
6.0 12.4 12.5 9.7 6.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.3
4.3 10.9 11.1 8.8 6.0 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.5
1.7 5.4 7.1 6.1 4.4 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.9
1.0 2.0 3.2 3.3 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.9
2.0 5.4 6.3 4.9 3.3 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.4 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.1
6.4 11.5 10.6 7.8 5.2 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.6 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.3
9.5 13.2 12.1 8.9 6.0 4.3 3.7 4.1 4.6 4.4 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.8 5.3 5.5 4.8 3.4 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.3
8.3 10.8 10.3 7.9 5.7 4.4 4.5 5.8 6.9 6.4 5.3 5.2 6.5 7.2 6.5 5.8 6.2 7.2 7.2 6.4 6.5 7.5 7.8 6.3 4.5 3.3 3.6 4.5 4.8 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 2.4
1.4 6.3 13.3 16.3 13.2 6.3 2.1 4.8 12.8 16.5 14.1 8.9 5.6 6.8 6.9 5.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 6.4 8.1 7.3 5.6 5.5 7.3 8.3 7.2 6.3 7.3 9.0 8.9 7.4 7.3 8.9 9.4 7.5 5.8 6.0 7.0 6.5 5.2 5.3 6.8 7.3 6.2 5.4 6.3 7.4 6.9 5.3 3.7 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.0
1.9 7.5 13.9 16.8 13.8 7.6 2.9 5.7 12.6 16.0 14.0 9.1 4.4 3.1 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.5 3.1 5.0 6.4 5.7 4.1 4.0 5.7 6.6 5.6 4.9 6.2 8.0 7.8 6.2 6.0 7.6 8.3 6.8 6.0 7.4 9.3 8.7 6.8 6.8 8.8 9.5 7.7 6.7 8.0 9.8 9.1 6.4 4.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.3 4.7 9.0 11.9 10.4 10.1 4.3 2.9 3.4 6.0 8.4 8.0 8.7 7.6 7.2
2.0 6.3 10.9 13.0 10.9 6.6 3.0 4.3 9.1 11.3 10.4 6.9 3.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.5 3.5 4.7 4.5 3.5 3.3 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.5 6.5 8.4 7.9 6.2 6.3 8.1 8.7 7.1 6.2 7.4 9.1 8.4 6.0 3.8 2.9 2.8 3.1 4.4 4.8 3.9 4.3 5.1 4.0 3.1 3.1 4.0 7.3 23.0 38.2 25.0 35.1 6.8 3.6 4.4 16.4 33.9 21.6 34.5 21.0 32.0
2.7 5.8 8.7 10.3 8.8 6.4 4.4 4.6 5.6 6.8 6.3 4.4 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.7 4.2 5.3 5.1 4.1 4.2 5.2 5.6 4.7 4.1 5.0 6.0 5.8 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.9 4.4 13.2 22.3 8.4 3.9 3.5 5.3 15.5
8.2 19.2 14.4 21.6 14.6 20.2 13.2 18.6 6.7 4.1 5.6 6.1 3.3 2.5 4.3 6.6 4.2 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.3 5.5 19.0 35.1 11.3 4.7 4.1 6.3 20.2
3.3 13.9 27.7 5.4 1.8 8.3 35.9 8.7 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 5.3 7.4 18.2 27.7 12.7 6.8 6.4 8.2 19.0
14.0 12.5 15.8 12.9 16.0 13.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 13.0 16.1 13.1 16.1 13.1 16.1 13.1 16.2 13.2 16.3 13.3 16.3 13.3 16.3 13.4 16.4 13.4 16.5 13.6 16.9 14.0 17.2 14.3 17.7 16.5 31.6 40.5 27.5 15.9 21.7 17.0 34.7
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.2
1.2 1.7 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.5
1.3 1.9 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.6
1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.4
0.9 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.2
0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.9
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0
0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3
1.1 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.6
1.3 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.0
1.5 2.1 2.8 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.3
1.4 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.4
1.4 1.9 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5
1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8
1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0
1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.3
1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.3 3.8
1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.7 4.6
2.4 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.1
3.0 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.8
3.8 4.7 5.3 5.5 5.3 4.9 4.4 4.0 3.6
4.6 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.8
4.8 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.1
4.1 4.8 5.3 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.8
3.3 3.9 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.4
2.8 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.7
2.5 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8
2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7
2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2
3.2 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8
3.8 4.6 5.1 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9
4.8 5.6 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.5
5.1 5.9 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.2
4.2 5.0 5.6 5.9 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.2
3.2 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.6
2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7
1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.0
3.3 4.3 6.9
2.3 6.0 32.3
1.7 4.3 12.2
1.3 2.2 2.1
0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.8
0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.2
1.1 1.7 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.0 1.4
1.0 1.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.3
0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.1
0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.9
1.5 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.9
1.3 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5
0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.7
1.1 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.4
2.0 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.2
3.0 3.9 4.6 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.6
3.8 4.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.4
3.8 4.7 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0
2.9 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
2.0 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5
1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9
0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.9
1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.1
1.6 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.7
2.0 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.3
2.5 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8
2.4 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0
1.8 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.7 6.1 7.6
1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 2.2 19.1 37.1
1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.0
1.1 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.2
1.2 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.3
1.3 1.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.4
1.1 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.4 1.8 1.3
0.9 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.1
0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.8
0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6
3.9 3.9 2.8 1.5 1.1 1.6 2.7 3.4 3.0 1.8 1.1 1.3 2.3 3.2 3.0 2.1 1.1
6.7 7.1 5.2 2.6 1.8 3.0 5.3 6.7 5.7 3.4 1.9 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 3.6 1.9
8.8 9.4 6.8 3.4 2.3 4.0 7.1 9.2 7.8 4.5 2.5 3.4 6.5 8.5 7.3 4.6 2.4
9.1 9.2 6.6 3.3 2.3 4.0 7.0 9.0 7.6 4.5 2.5 3.2 6.3 8.4 7.5 4.8 2.6
9.2 9.0 6.3 3.1 2.3 3.7 6.7 8.4 7.3 4.3 2.4 3.0 5.8 7.9 7.2 4.8 2.5
9.5 9.7 6.9 3.5 2.4 4.0 7.1 9.1 7.7 4.6 2.5 3.3 6.4 8.5 7.5 4.8 2.6
8.9 9.3 6.7 3.4 2.3 4.0 7.0 9.1 7.7 4.5 2.4 3.3 6.4 8.4 7.3 4.6 2.4
6.4 6.5 4.7 2.4 1.8 2.9 5.1 6.4 5.5 3.3 1.8 2.3 4.6 5.9 5.2 3.4 1.8
3.7 3.5 2.4 1.4 1.1 1.6 2.6 3.2 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.2 2.2 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.1
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Max/Avg
Pathway_Northeast Illuminance Fc 5.77 48.9 0.9 6.41 54.33 8.47
Pathway_Southeast Illuminance Fc 7.62 39.8 1.1 6.93 36.18 5.22
Pathway_West Illuminance Fc 5.09 19.9 0.8 6.36 24.88 3.91
Pool Deck Illuminance Fc 5.14 44.2 0.8 6.43 55.25 8.60
Seating Area_Northeast Illuminance Fc 2.16 3.2 0.7 3.09 4.57 1.48
Seating Area_Northwest Illuminance Fc 3.87 6.4 0.7 5.53 9.14 1.65
Seating Area_Southeast Illuminance Fc 2.51 32.3 0.7 3.59 46.14 12.87
Seating Area_Southwest_1 Illuminance Fc 2.81 37.1 0.5 5.62 74.20 13.20
Trellis Illuminance Fc 4.63 9.7 1.0 4.63 9.70 2.10
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-2.2SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION
PLANS - LVL 3
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
AMENITY
AMENITY
REST RM
ROOFTOP WALKING SURFACE
FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY
LOW ROOF
LOW ROOF
OPEN TO PODIUM
BELOWLOW ROOF
UP
FIRE ROOFTOP STAIR ACCESS
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
ROOF BELOW
(SEE LVL 7 PLAN)
0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5
1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8
3.8 5.2 6.4 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.5
10.0 14.4 18.4 20.2 20.1 19.9 19.2 18.7 18.0 17.6 16.9 16.4 15.8 15.3 14.7 14.2 13.6 13.1 12.6 12.1 11.6 11.2 10.8 10.4 10.0 9.6 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 7.3 6.9 6.4 5.9 5.2 4.2
22.2 23.2 23.4 24.0 24.0 24.4 24.2 24.4 24.0 24.1 23.5 23.3 22.7 22.3 21.6 21.1 20.3 19.8 18.9 18.1 16.3 13.2
23
25
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Max/Avg
Roof Deck Illuminance Fc 3.83 24.4 0.4 9.58 61.00 6.37
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-2.3SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION
PLANS - LVL 7
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS3 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2, AS3 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 35.43" Tall LED Bollard Light,
3000K
Type DP2 - Decorative Outdoor Ceiling Light,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2400K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED Low
Voltage Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2 - Surface-mounted LED Wall Pack,
3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-Mounted (4) Adjustable
LED Bullet Accent, Per Anaheim City Standards,
4000K
Type BH2 - 22" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type GH1 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade
Linear LED Wall Wash Uplight, 3000K
Type GH2 - Hardscape-mounted In-grade LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type PH1 - 8'-2" Tall LED Pedestrian Pole Light,
3000K
Type RA2 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight in Trellis, 3000K
Type SC2 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String, 2700K
Type SC3 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2400K
Type SC4 - Suspended LED Low Voltage
Festoon String with Drop Pendants, 2700K
Type SC5 - Suspended RGBW Color Changing
LED Low Voltage Festoon String
Type WR1 - Wall-recessed Steplight, 3000K26
27
Type RD1 - Recessed Fixed LED Downlight ,
3000K
28
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE EX POLE LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE NEW POLE LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AL1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS1
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS3 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS2, AS3 TREE RING LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE BH1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.1LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA B
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE BH2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE GH1
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE GH2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE GL1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE PH1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE RA1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.2LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA B
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE RA2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC2LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE RD1
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC3 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC4 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC5 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SS1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.3LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA B
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SS2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WR1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS2
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.4LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA B
A-TOWN FIRE MASTER PLAN
CITY OF ANAHEIM
GENERAL FIRE NOTES
SHEET INDEX
F-1 TITLE SHEET
F-2 OVERALL FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-3 DEVELOPMENT AREA B FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-4 DEVELOPMENT AREA B ELEVATIONS
F-5 DEVELOPMENT AREA B SECTIONS
COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION LETTER
PARKING ENFORCEMENT LETTERPREMISES IDENTIFICATION & ADDRESSING
DECEMBER 23, 2021
ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT
201 SOUTH ANAHEIM BLVD, SUITE 300-30
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
RE: PARKING ENFORCEMENT PLAN: A-TOWN, DEVELOPMENT AREA B, ANAHEIM, CA
THE FIRE LANE PARKING ENFORCEMENT PLAN FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED IS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL FIRE LANES WITHIN SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND IN NO EVENT SHALL PARKING BE PERMITTED ALONG
ANY PORTION OF A STREET OR DRIVE THAT REQUIRED FIRE LANES OR ANY AREA DESIGNATED AS A FIRE LANE
FOR TURN-AROUND OR DRIVE THROUGH PURPOSES.
THE PROJECT SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES
ALONG THE STREETS, ROADS AND OR DRIVES WITHIN THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
APPLICABLE LAW.
IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF, THE PROJECT DEVELOPER, THROUGH ITS OFFICERS, COMMITTEES AND AGENTS
WILL ESTABLISH THE "PARKING" AND "NO PARKING" AREAS WITHIN THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 22658.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE AND ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY GUIDELINES. THE
LAW SHALL BE ENFORCED THROUGH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS BY ALL LAWFUL MEANS, INCLUDING,
WRITTEN WARNINGS, CITING, LEVYING FINES AND TOWING VEHICLES IN VIOLATION.
THE PROJECT DEVELOPER WILL CONTRACT WITH A CERTIFIED PATROL AND TOWING COMPANY TO REMOVE
VEHICLES THAT VIOLATE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. FIRST TIME VIOLATORS WILL RECEIVE A WRITTEN
WARNING AND WITH SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS, THE VEHICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TOWING. THE VEHICLE
OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED IN REMEDYING SUCH VIOLATION, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION TOWING COST, CITATIONS AND LEGAL FEES.
DECEMBER 23, 2021
ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT
201 SOUTH ANAHEIM BLVD, SUITE 300-30
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
SUBJECT: COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION LETTER: A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B, ANAHEIM, CA
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THIS PROJECT SHALL INSTALL ALL REQUIRED PAVED
FIRE ACCESS ROADS THAT MEET ANAHEIM FIRE AND RESCUE GUIDELINES PER THE APPROVED PLANS. ALL FIRE
HYDRANTS AND WATER SUPPLY FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE APPROVED
PLANS AND SHALL MEET ALL FIRE FLOWS REQUIREMENTS, PRIOR TO ANY COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
A. ELECTRICALLY OPERATED GATES AND BARRIERS CFC 503.6
1)IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OF NORMAL POWER TO THE GATE OPERATING MECHANISM, IT SHALL BE
AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO A FAIL-SAFE MODE ALLOWING THE GATE TO BE PUSHED OPEN BY A SINGLE
FIREFIGHTER WITHOUT ANY OTHER ACTIONS, KNOWLEDGE, OR MANIPULATION OF THE OPERATING MECHANISM BEING
NECESSARY AND WITHOUT THE USE OF BATTERY BACK-UP POWER, EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW. THE MANUFACTURER’S
SPECIFICATION SHEET DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS METHOD OF OPERATION DURING POWER LOSS SHALL
BE PROVIDED OR SCANNED DIRECTLY ONTO THE PLAN. SHOULD THE GATE BE TOO LARGE OR HEAVY FOR A SINGLE
FIREFIGHTER TO OPEN MANUALLY, A SECONDARY SOURCE OF RELIABLE POWER BY MEANS OF AN EMERGENCY
GENERATOR OR A CAPACITOR WITH ENOUGH RESERVE TO AUTOMATICALLY, IMMEDIATELY, AND COMPLETELY OPEN
THE GATE UPON LOSS OF PRIMARY POWER SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FAIL-OPEN OPERATION. A CAPACITOR, BUT NOT
A BATTERY, MAY ALSO BE USED FOR FAIL-OPEN OPERATION WHERE THE GATE OPERATING MECHANISM DOES NOT
HAVE A FAIL-SAFE MODE.
a.A BATTERY MAY ONLY BE USED IN PLACE OF FAIL-SAFE MANUAL OPERATION WHEN THE GATE OPERATOR HAS A
FAIL-OPEN MODE THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY, IMMEDIATELY, AND COMPLETELY OPEN THE GATE AND KEEP IT OPEN
UPON REACHING A LOW POWER THRESHOLD, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OF NORMAL POWER.
2)THE GATE CONTROL FOR ELECTRONIC GATES SHALL BE OPERABLE BY A KNOX EMERGENCY OVERRIDE KEY
SWITCH (WITH DUST COVER). THE KEY SWITCH SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN 42” AND 48” ABOVE THE ROADWAY
SURFACE AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ACCESS GATE WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY. THE KEY
SWITCH SHALL BE READILY VISIBLE AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE FIRE LANE LEADING TO THE GATE. THE KEY
SWITCH SHALL BE CLEARLY LABELED “FIRE DEPT.”
3) FOR ELECTRICALLY OPERATED GATES, THE TYPE OF REMOTE GATE OPENING DEVICE THAT WILL BE INSTALLED
SHALL BE NOTED ON THE PLAN. THE REMOTE OPENING DEVICE IS REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE KNOX KEY SWITCH.
THE REMOTE OPENING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ANAHEIM FIRE & RESCUE ARE EITHER OPTICAL
OR RADIO-CONTROLLED. OPTICAL SYSTEMS WORK THE SAME AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION SYSTEM BY USING
THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE’S STROBE LIGHT TO OPEN THE GATE. THE RADIO-CONTROLLED SYSTEM OPENS THE GATE
WHEN THE EMERGENCY RESPONDER CLICKS THE RECEIVER ON AN 800 MHZ RADIO. A GATE SERVING AN INDIVIDUAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR DUPLEX IS EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.
CURRENTLY APPROVED GATE OPENING SYSTEMS INCLUDE:
-3M OPTICOM
-CLICK2ENTER* (SYSTEM SHALL BE CONFIGURED IN SINGLE-PULSE MODE WITH 1.5 SECOND TRANSMISSION
WINDOW)
-FIRE STROBE ACCESS PRODUCTS, INC.
-TOMAR
4)UPON ACTIVATION OF THE KEY SWITCH, THE GATE SHALL OPEN AND REMAIN OPEN UNTIL RETURNED TO
NORMAL OPERATION BY MEANS OF THE KEY SWITCH. WHERE A GATE CONSISTS OF TWO LEAVES, THE KEY SWITCH
SHALL OPEN BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY IF OPERATION OF A SINGLE LEAF ON THE INGRESS SIDE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
THE WIDTH, TURNING RADII, OR SETBACKS NECESSARY FOR FIRE APPARATUS TO NAVIGATE THE VEHICLE ENTRY
POINT.
5)THE KEY SWITCH SHALL BE LABELED WITH A PERMANENT RED SIGN WITH NOT LESS THAN 1/2" CONTRASTING
LETTERS READING 'FIRE DEPT' OR WITH A 'KNOX' DECAL.
B. GATE AND BARRIER LOCKS - GATE OR BARRIER LOCKS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THEIR
INSTALLATION ON ANY NEW AND/OR EXISTING ACCESS GATE OR BARRIER. AUTHORIZATION FOR KNOX PRODUCTS IS
PROCESSED THROUGH THE KNOX BOX COMPANY WEBSITE AT WWW.KNOXBOX.COM. KNOX KEY SWITCHES AND KEY
BOXES SERVING ONLY VEHICLE GATES AND NOT BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBMASTERED FOR USE BY BOTH THE FIRE AND
POLICE DEPARTMENT. CALL THE ANAHEIM FIRE & RESCUE COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION SECTION AT 714-573-6100
FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE NEED FOR KEY BOXES OR SWITCHES. SEE SECTION 9.C.3 FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING INSTALLATION OF KEY BOXES AND KEY SWITCHES ON PEDESTRIAN GATES AND BUILDINGS.FIRE LANE - NO STOPPING6"
STANDARD CURB
FI
R
E
L
A
N
E
-
N
O
S
TO
P
P
I
NG
8"
6" ROLLED CURB
WEDGE CURB
8"FIRE LANE - NO STOPPING1. CURBS ALONG ACCESS LANES SHALL BE PAINTED OSHA
SAFETY RED OR EQUIVALENT. "FIRE LANE NO STOPING"
SHALL BE PAINTED ON TOP OF CURB IN WHITE LETTERING
3 INCHES HIGH AND SHALL BE SPACED 30'-0" ON CENTER
OR PORTION THEREOF
PAINT
RED
American McFrance
40' MAXIMUM
20' MINIMUM
OUTRIGGERS
16' FOR
INDICATES STANDARD AERIAL TRUCK
LADDERING ACCESS POINTS; NO
CLOSER THAN 20', OR FARTHER THAN 40'
FROM BUILDING TO FIRE ACCESS ROAD
PAINT
RED
PAINT
RED
MOTORIZED GATE NOTES
RED CURB DETAILSAERIAL TRUCK LADDERING
VICINITY MAP
NORTH
A.APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF ALL NEW OR EXISTING
BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD ON WHICH
THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED. ADDRESSES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WHERE THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF
BEING OBSTRUCTED BY SIGNS, AWNINGS, VEGETATION, OR OTHER BUILDING/SITE ELEMENTS. AN ADDRESS
MONUMENT AT THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE OR OTHER LOCATION CLEARLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE
PUBLIC ROAD MAY BE PROVIDED IN LIEU OF AN ADDRESS ON THE STRUCTURE WHERE ONLY A SINGLE
BUILDING WITH A SINGLE STREET ADDRESS IS PRESENT AND NO OTHER STRUCTURES ARE ACCESSIBLE FROM
THE FIRE LANE SERVING THAT STRUCTURE.
B.THE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND.
C.THE NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OR MORE IN HEIGHT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES AND 6 INCHES OR MORE FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR THE PRIMARY BUILDING ADDRESS
OR ADDRESS RANGE POSTED ON MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE 6" NUMBERS SHALL HAVE A
ONE-INCH STROKE AND THE 4" NUMBERS SHALL HAVE A 1
2" STROKE, OR AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE,
WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. BUILDING SETBACKS, ELEVATION, AND LANDSCAPING CAN AFFECT THESE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS.
D. MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION'S
SECURITY CODE. ILLUMINATION OF ADDRESSES IS RECOMMENDED TO FACILITATE RAPID LOCATION OF A SITE
OR BUILDING.
E.WHERE IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHICH STREET A BUILDING IS ADDRESSED TO (E.G., A BUILDING IS ACCESSED
ONLY FROM A STREET OTHER THAN THE ONE IT IS ADDRESSED TO, MULTIPLE MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE SITE
OR BUILDING ITSELF FRONT DIFFERENT STREETS), THE NAME OF THE STREET SHALL ALSO BE IDENTIFIED AS
PART OF THE POSTED ADDRESS.
IN ADDITION TO COMMON REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
PERTAIN TO EACH BUILDING CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED BELOW:
F.MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS: SUITE/APARTMENT NUMBERS SHALL BE PLACED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PRIMARY
ENTRANCE FOR EACH SUITE/APARTMENT AND ANY OTHER DOOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO FIRE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL DURING AN EMERGENCY. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS HAVING ENTRANCE
DOORS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD SHALL, IN ADDITION, HAVE APPROVED NUMBERS GROUPED
FOR ALL UNITS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURE AND POSITIONED TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR
ROAD.
G.MULTI-BUILDING CLUSTERS: APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FRONT
ELEVATION(S) OF ALL BUILDINGS THAT FORM THE CLUSTER. IF ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES ARE NOT CLEARLY
VISIBLE OR LEGIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD SERVING THE STRUCTURES, AN ADDRESS MONUMENT SHALL
ALSO BE PROVIDED AT THE ENTRY POINT(S) TO THE SITE INDICATING THE RANGE OF ADDRESSES ACCESSIBLE
FROM THAT ENTRANCE.
22" MIN
FIRE LANE
NO STOPPING IN
VEHICLES SUBJECT TO
17" MIN
AT OWNER'S EXPENSE
TOW-AWAY
CITY OF ANAHEIM POLICE
(714) 765-1900
CITATION AND/OR
CVC 22500.1 CVC22658
FIRE LANE
ENTRANCE SIGN
THIS SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT ALL FIRE LANE ENTRANCES
WITH LANES MARKED BY EITHER RED CURBING OR SIGNS.
THE SIGN SHALL BE NO SMALLER THAN SEVENTEEN (17)
INCHES WIDE BY TWENTY TWO (22) INCHES HIGH.
ALL LETTERS ON
SIGN WILL BE
NOT LESS THAN
1" IN HEIGHT
1
HEIGHT OF SIGN IN
SIDEWALK OR PEDESTRIAN
AREA SHALL BE 7'-0"; 5'-0"
IN ALL OTHER AREAS.
DEPTH OF SIGN SHALL BE 18
INCHES FROM STANDARD CURB
AND 24 INCHES WITH ROLLED
CURB TO CENTER OF POST.
BURY DEPTH SHALL BE A
MINIMUM OF 24 INCHES.
FIRE LANE SIGN
MOUNTING
FIRE LANE SIGN DETAILS
1.ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT. FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED. PLEASE SCHEDULE ALL FIELD
INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. INSPECTIONS CANCELED AFTER 1 P.M. ON
THE DAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RE-INSPECTION FEE.
CALL ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SCHEDULING AT 714-765-4040.
2.FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT THE
IMPOSED LOAD OF 78,000LBS., AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ALL-WEATHER SURFACE.
3.ALL-WEATHER ACCESS ROADS AND HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SHALL BE IN PLACE AND OPERATIONAL BEFORE ANY
COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ARE PLACED ON SITE. ACCESS ROADS AND HYDRANTS SHALL
BE MAINTAINED AND REMAIN CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES PER ANAHEIM FIRE
DEPARTMENT.
4.THE GRADE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10%.
5.FIRE LANE SIGNS AND RED CURBS SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN ANAHEIM
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DESCRIBED THEREIN.
6.ADDRESS NUMBERS WITH STREET NAME SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX INCHES HIGH AND/OR
FOUR INCHES, AS REQUIRED AND PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY FROM WHICH THE
BUILDING IS ADDRESSED.
7.ALL REQUIRED FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED, TESTED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION PER 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE.
8.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE A "BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER" INDICATING THE
LOCATION PER THE ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT. STANDARD. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY , MARKERS
ARE TO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
9.THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW TEST MAY BE FIELD VERIFIED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
INSPECTOR.
10.THIS PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ALL CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT. ADOPTED ORDINANCES.
11.TURNAROUNDS AND TURNING RADIUSES ON PRIMARY BACKBONE STREET AND DRIVES
SHALL MEET 17.5' INSIDE AND 38' OUTSIDE RADIUS MINIMUM.
12.DEVELOPMENT TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY PODIUM AND WRAP BUILDINGS WITH RETAIL AND
AMENITY USE ELEMENTS
13.SECOND STORY OR HIGHER RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL REMAIN CLEAR OF VEGETATION
THAT WOULD IMPEDE ACCESS TO OR LADDERING OF RESCUE WINDOWS AND THE
REQUIRED WALKWAY TO THESE AREAS SHALL REMAIN CLEAR OF ITEMS SUCH AS
CONDENSERS AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, STORAGE UNITS, FURNITURE,
FENCES, LOCKED GATES, AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. FINAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS
SHALL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE OF THIS REQUIREMENT.
14.PROVIDE AN NFPA 13 AND NFPA FULL 13 FOR THE REC CENTER APPROVED AUTOMATIC
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE . PLANS FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL TO
THE ANAHEIM FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PER 2019 CALIFORNIA
FIRE CODE.
15.THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE MONITORED BY AN APPROVED CENTRAL STATION,
REMOTE STATION, OR PROPRIETARY SUPERVISING STATION IN ALL OCCUPANCIES NOT
NORMALLY OCCUPIED 24-HOURS A DAY, OR PROVIDED WITH 24-HOUR GUARD SERVICE
F-1TITLE SHEET
BALL
KATELLA
GENE AUTRY WAY
ORANGEWOOD AVE
CHAPMAN HASTER STREETSTATE COLLEGE BLVD.THE CITY DR.ORANGE 57 FREEWAYSANT
A
AN
A
FREEWAY
ANAHEIM
STADIUM SANTA ANA RIVERROAD
AVENUE
AVENUE
CHAPMAN
AVENUE
KATELLA
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
TRACT 17703 - LOT 1
FIRE MASTER PLAN
ANAHEIM FIRE & RESCUE APPROVAL
SHEET NO.DESCRIPTION
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA B - TRACT 17703 LOT 1 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA B - FIRE MASTER PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SETThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
12/23/2021
PLANNING
COMMISSION SET
1,786 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT2,287 SFMARKET2,104 SFFITNESS1,974 SFLEASINGLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYTRASH RMELEC RM 1 & 2ELEC. RM 4ELEC RM 3ELEV. EQLOBBY13,876 SFMARKETMPOEFAN ROOM1,808 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT1,912 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANTELEC RMGARAGEELEV. EQRETAIL PARKINGTRASH RMFAN ROOMTRASH RMRETAILPET SPAMAIL RM E. KATELLA AVE
S. WESTSIDE DRIVEMARKET STREETMERIDIAN STREET
PARK STREET METRO DRIVE E. KATELLA AVE
EXISTING ARCO
GAS STATION
EXISTING
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY FACILITY
TRACT 17703 - LOT 3
DEVELOPMENT AREA D
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
TRACT 17703 - LOT 2
DEVELOPMENT AREA C
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT A
PUBLIC PARK
TRACT 17703 - LOT 5
DEVELOPMENT AREA F
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT 6
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT 7
DEVELOPMENT AREA H
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
MERIDIAN STREET
S. WESTSIDE DRIVEUNION STREETPARK STREET
F-2
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
80'160'
80
INDICATES PROPOSED STRUCTURE
INDICATES PAVED SURFACE ON GRADE, WITH
ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING ANAHEIM
FIRE & RESCUE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT
VEHICULAR LOADS OF 70,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE
OVER SOIL COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90%
INDICATES EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
LEGEND
INDICATES PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
OVERALL
FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA B - TRACT 17703 LOT 1 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA B - FIRE MASTER PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SETThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
12/23/2021
PLANNING
COMMISSION SET
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
TRACT 17703 - LOT 1
SHEET F-3
TRACT 17703 - LOT 4
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
NOT A PART OF THIS REVIEW
1,786 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT2,287 SFMARKET2,104 SFFITNESS1,974 SFLEASINGLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYTRASH RMELEC RM 1 & 2ELEC. RM 4ELEC RM 3ELEV. EQLOBBY13,876 SFMARKETMPOEFAN ROOM1,808 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT1,912 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANTELEC RMGARAGEELEV. EQRETAIL PARKINGTRASH RMFAN ROOMTRASH RMRETAILPET SPAMAIL RM1
KB
LOADINGKB
4
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB 4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KS
3
KS
3
GARAGE UP
GARAGE DOWN
MOTORIZED
VEHICULAR GATE
MOTORIZED
VEHICULAR GATELOADING2
34'
42'
42'
26'
42'
26'
R=
1
7
.
5
'R=17.5'R=3
8
'
R=38'
R
=
1
7
.
5
'R=
3
8
'R=17.5'R=38'R=17.5'R=38'R=38'R=
1
7
.
5
'
R=38'R=17.5'R=
1
7
.
5
'
R=3
8
'
33'38'26'42'26'26'26'
26'
37'
46'
48'26'37'
45'
42'
47'31'25'
33'
29'33'37'
FDC FOR
APARTMENTS
DDC FOR
APARTMENTS
R=38'R=17.5'R
=
3
8
'
R
=
1
7
.
5
'
2
2
2
E. KATELLA AVE
S. WESTSIDE DRIVEMARKETSTREETMERIDIAN STREET
PARK STREET
TRACT 17703 - LOT 2
DEVELOPMENT AREA C
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT A
PUBLIC PARKRIDE SHAREFDC FOR
RETAIL
DDC FOR
RETAIL
FDC FOR
MARKET
DDC FOR
MARKET
30 MIN. L
OA
DI
N
G
USPS
DELIVE
RY
F-3
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
30'60'
30 R=
1
7
.
5
'R=
3
8
'
KB
PROPOSED FIRE LANE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED ON
PLAN AND DETAILS PROVIDED ON SHEET F-1
INDICATES PROPOSED STRUCTURE
PAINT CURB RED WITH 'FIRE LANE NO STOPPING'
STENCIL AT 30' O.C. PER DETAILS ON SHEET F-1
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF KNOX BOX
WITH 3-SETS OF ENTRY DOOR/GATE KEYS
INDICATES KNOX KEY SWITCH
INDICATES 150' HOSE PULL FROM FIRE ACCESS
ROADWAY
INDICATES PAVED SURFACE ON GRADE, WITH
ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING ANAHEIM
FIRE & RESCUE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT
VEHICULAR LOADS OF 70,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE
OVER SOIL COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90%
INDICATES EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
INDICATES PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
LOCATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINAL LOCATION AS
PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.
INDICATES PROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK
LOCATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINAL
LOCATION AS PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.
INDICATES ELEVATOR LOCATIONS
INDICATES STANDARD AERIAL TRUCK LADDERING
ACCESS
BUILDING IDENTIFICATION LOCATIONS - 6" MIN. TALL
LETTERING - APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN -
SEE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR FINAL DESIGN
INDICATES STAIR LOCATIONS
1
2
INDICATES KNOX KEY SWITCH3
4
INSTALL RED CURB PER DETAILS ON SHEET F-1
INSTALL FIRE LANE ENTRANCE SIGN PER DETAIL ON
SHEET F-1
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION KNOX BOX WITH
3-SETS OF ENTRY DOOR/GATE KEYS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND
KS
BUILDING DATA
FIRE FLOW OF 4,000 GPM / 4 HOURS FOR THE BUILDING OF 360,603 SF WITH TYPE III-A CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM. FIELD VERIFICATION OF FIRE FLOW OF 4,000 GPM AT 20 PSI FOR A 4-HOUR DURATION SHALL BE
REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRECISE GRADE PERMIT. 4 HYDRANTS MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED
LEVELS
CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
AUTOMATIC
FIRE
SPRINKLERS
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
1 & 2 ABOVE GRADE /
SUBTERRANEAN
USE
FULL NFPA 13 319,603 SF
LEVELS 3 THROUGH 7
ABOVE GRADE FULL NFPA 13 360,375 SFTYPE III-A
TYPE I-A
INDICATES MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS WITH A 17.5'
INSIDE TURNING RADII AND 38' OUTSIDE TURNING RADII
INDICATES PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND
PARKING GARAGE
RESIDENTIAL
AND AMENITY
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA B - TRACT 17703 LOT 1 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA B - FIRE MASTER PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SETThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
12/23/2021
PLANNING
COMMISSION SET
F-4
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
20'40'
20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA B - TRACT 17703 LOT 1 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA B - FIRE MASTER PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SETThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
12/23/2021
PLANNING
COMMISSION SET
F-5
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SECTIONS
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
20'40'
20
SECTION 2 (EAST - WEST)
SECTION 1 (NORTH - SOUTH)
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA B - TRACT 17703 LOT 1 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA B - FIRE MASTER PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SETThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA B
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
12/23/2021
PLANNING
COMMISSION SET
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO MVE
& PARTNERS INC. AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE
LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT
OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE
AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF MVE & PARTNERS,
INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, COPYRIGHT 2005.
6-16-2015
1
2
3
4
2nd Submittal
3rd Submittal
4th Submittal
5th Submittal
3-11-14
10-7-14
12-15-14
6-16-15
DATE:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
S H E E T # :
A - Town
All locations for retail, stoops and amenities are conceptual
in nature and subject to change pending Final Site
Plan Application.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS GRAPHICS
1900 MAIN STREET SUITE 800
IRVINE, CA 92614
T: 949.809.3388 F: 949.809.3399
INFO@MVE-ARCHITECTS.COM
WWW.MVE-ARCHITECTS.COM
DOCUMENT SIZE: 30” X 42”
P.T. Metro, LLC
Summary Sheet
N O R T H
N/A
12-10163PROJECT #:
SCALE:
0
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS GRAPHICS
1900 MAIN STREET SUITE 800
IRVINE, CA 92614
T: 949.809.3388 F: 949.809.3399
INFO@MVE-ARCHITECTS.COM
WWW.MVE-ARCHITECTS.COM
DOCUMENT SIZE: 30” X 42”
P.T. Metro, LLC
Ground Floor Use Diagram
A-1
Commercial Retail/Restaurants
Commercial Retail/Restaurants
and/or Residential Amenities
Residential Amenities
Residential Amenities
and/or Residential Stoops and Patios
Residential Stoops and Patios
Potential Private Open Space
Types of Ground Floor Uses Allowed
1ST AMENDMENT (2019) - REVISED PARCEL E & F
2ND AMENDMENT (2021) - REVISED PARCEL B
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
February 4, 2020
Mr. G. Scott Koehm, AICP
Principal Planner, Planning & Building Department
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Subject:Justification Letter – Ground Floor Leasing Office
A-Town Development Area B (DEV2020-00287)
Lot 1, Tract No. 17703
The Platinum Triangle
Anaheim, CA
Dear Scott:
Thank you again for your feedback in our meeting on January 21st to discuss the A-Town CDR submittal.
We appreciate your consideration of our questions and responses. As a follow-up to the topic of the
leasing office on Development Area B, this letter is intended to be a summary of our rational behind this
proposed use and location for your consideration.
Leasing Office Use
The space that is being proposed on the corner of Meridian and Market Streets will contain
administrative, management, business, and marketing functions for the property and will have a
significant flow of visitors internal to the community as well as the general public. This type of occupancy
will be classified as “Business-Type B” in the California Building Code due to the types of professional
activities and transactions conducted inside. It is our understanding that this use would also be a
permitted ground floor commercial use per Table 20-A of Section 18.20.030 of the PTMU Overlay Zone
under the “Offices-General” category of Non-Residential Classes of Use. See Attachment “A”.
The leasing office is crucial to the success of any for-rent apartment project and needs to be placed in a
prominent ground floor location in order to be located by visitors and potential future residents. We
believe the proposed location is ideal because it will be easily located, occupies the least desirable retail
space, will be a natural continuation of the retail edge on Market Street, and is the only remaining ground
floor location where this use would be allowed in the A-Town Master Site Plan Ground Floor Use Diagram.
Leasing offices, like this one, have been successful in activating streets in urban communities all over the
country, and we believe it will be a very positive addition to the proposed project’s Market Street
frontage.
Retail Constraints
The inclusion of a market in the program for Development Area B will be a significant addition to A-Town
and will meet an important demand for the Platinum Triangle residents. We believe that having a grocer
in this location will also serve as an anchor and bring foot traffic to the remaining retailers.
While the proposed project meets the minimum commercial floor space required for Development Area
B, with 21,080 square feet of retail uses (excluding the leasing office floor area) required by the A-Town
Master Site Plan and Development Agreement, the parking area available on the ground floor can only
generate enough stalls to meet the anticipated parking demand for the market and the required stalls
needed for the proposed in-line retail. Additional retail space would require retail parking in either the
subterranean or upper levels of the parking structure. Potential suitors for the market have indicated
that convenient at-grade parking is required for this location. If additional retail were included in
Development Area B, it would be very difficult to lure a desirable tenant for the market space without
having all the retail parking located on the ground floor of the parking structure. In practical terms, the
inclusion of the market essentially eliminates the potential for retail on the entire Market Street frontage
based on parking.
The reluctance to locate retail at the corner of Meridian and Market Streets is also influenced by market
research conducted recently, and at the time of the Master Site Plan Amendment in 2015. Market
research concludes that the further a retail space is from Katella Avenue, the likelihood of attracting a
desirable tenant dissipates. The risk of vacant storefronts in this area would be very real and detrimental
to the community. The Planning Commission and City Council staff reports for the A-Town Master Site
Plan Amendment in 2015 referenced and acknowledged this concern in the following excerpt summary
points below. Staff report included as Attachment “B” included for reference.
Retail development is most viable along Katella Avenue because of its traffic volume and high
visibility.
Retail development along Market Street is very challenged due to limited traffic, access, and
visibility.
Neighborhood services such as pharmacy and grocery uses that will primarily address the needs
of the area’s residents should be the long-term goal.
Our team gave further consideration to the notion of flipping the locations of the in-line retail and the
leasing office. We concluded that moving the leasing office does not change the discussion about
approved uses at the ground floor. It also breaks up the critical mass of retail and foot traffic along
Market Street as well as pushing retail too far from Katella Avenue.
Architecture/Urban Design
The rendering included as an exhibit to this letter was created to demonstrate our design intentions for
the Market Street Frontage on Market Street. Our goal is for this entire frontage to be characterized by
pedestrian activity, outdoor seating/dining, storefront windows, and enhanced landscaping and building
materials. As the rendering shows, the quality and design treatment of the building facade, windows,
signage, lighting, and landscaping will be consistent, and commercial in nature along the entire street. See
Attachment “C”.
While we are aware of, and sensitive to the evolution of Market Street in A-Town, we believe that the
proposed development represents a great urban design and a solution which has the best chance for
long-term success. We are committed to working with City of Anaheim staff to ensure that A-Town
becomes a community we are all proud of.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Darin Schoolmeester, AIA
Principal, KTGY
NCARB, LEED AP
CC: Paul Ogier, PT Metro, LLC
Ted Frattone, Hunsaker & Associates
Megan Palmer, KTGY
Attachment “A”:
Attachment “B”:
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR NO. 339
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 321
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00490
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2015-00598
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00112
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.2005-00008C
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17703
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00002
(COLLECTIVELY, THE "PROJECT ACTIONS")
LOCATION: The Property is located at 1404 East Katella Avenue and consists of
approximately 43.1-acres generally located west of State College Boulevard between
Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way (A-Town).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The agent is Ted Frattone with Hunsaker
and Associates representing the applicant and property owner Donna Kelly with PT
Metro, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a series of actions that would allow the
construction of a mixed-use project consisting of between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two
public parks and a network of local streets. This project is collectively referred to as
the A-Town Project. This request requires Planning Commission review and City
Council approval of the following:
1) Addendum No. 4 to Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
(FSEIR No. 339) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 (MMP No. 321),
together with other previously-approved environmental documents, to serve
as the appropriate environmental documentation for the A-Town Project.
2) A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan to reflect the location of the proposed public
parks and local streets.
3) An amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to
reconfigure the local street network, revise street cross-sections, modify
ground floor commercial/retail use locations, delete the A-Town Public
Realm Landscape and Identity Program, and to adjust the boundaries of the
Katella and Gene Autry Districts.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 2 of 15
4) A Zoning Code Amendment to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU)
Overlay Zone to modify the requirements for ground floor commercial uses along Market
Street and modify standards related to on-street and tandem parking.
5) An Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and
PT Metro, LLC to develop the A-Town Project.
6) A tentative tract map to re-subdivide approximately 36.7 acres of the project site into lots
for condominium purposes and establish the new alignment and configuration of the
internal public streets and public recreation/park areas to be dedicated to the City.
7) A Final Site Plan to construct a 400-unit apartment project with a 6-story parking
structure on Development Area A.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
attached resolutions recommending that the City Council approve Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR
No. 339 and MMP No. 321, together with other previously-approved environmental documents,
that serve as the environmental documentation for the A-Town Project; and, approve the
requested General Plan Amendment, PTMLUP Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment,
Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map and Final Site Plan.
BACKGROUND: In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General
Plan and Zoning Code Update which established a new vision for the Platinum Triangle as a
dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update created new land use designations within the
Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for existing, largely industrial, uses to transition to
mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. This General Plan Update also established
the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which at that time
permitted up to 9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses.
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the PTMLUP and the PTMU Overlay Zone to
implement this new vision for the Platinum Triangle. Under these updated zoning regulations,
an approved Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement between property owners and the
City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU Overlay Zone. For projects over
twelve acres, a Master Site Plan may be approved in lieu of a Final Site Plan, as is the case with
this development application. A Master Site Plan typically identifies the development proposal
in a broad scope, depicting street layouts, development areas and infrastructure improvement
areas. A Final Site Plan provides greater detail including plans for the specific buildings,
parking areas, landscaping and other improvements. In order to implement a Master Site Plan, a
developer is required to subsequently submit a Final Site Plan for each building which is subject
to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP and Zoning Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 3 of 15
intensities within the Platinum Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of
office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of
the related actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle,
LLC to construct the A-Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681
residential units; 150,000 square feet of commercial uses; two public parks; and, a network of
local streets. An addendum to FSEIR 332 was prepared and approved as part of that project. On
November 8, 2005, City Council approved a Development Agreement for the project, which was
recorded on December 13, 2005. On December 16, 2008, City Council approved an amendment
to the Development Agreement to allow additional time to complete certain milestones. The
amended Development Agreement was recorded on February 23, 2009.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan,
PTMLUP, PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable
development intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to
18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of
commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Three addenda to FSEIR No. 339 have been approved following certification of the EIR in 2010.
These addenda were approved in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5 undercrossing
improvements and revisions to the Platinum Gateway and Platinum Vista projects. These
projects included changes to the maximum permitted development intensity within the Platinum
Triangle, which now permits up to 19,027 residential units; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
The subject 43.1-acre A-Town site consists of the same property approved for the A-Town
Metro Project. The property is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the PTMU Overlay Zone.
The General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use and Park land uses. The property is
surrounded by multi-family and commercial uses to the north across Katella Avenue; industrial,
office, residential and commercial uses to the east; vacant property to the south across Gene
Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west. The subject property is currently undeveloped but
was “rough-graded” and improved with the majority of the infrastructure for the previously
approved A-Town Metro Project. These improvements include streets, water and sewer
facilities, storm drains and dry utilities. Due to the changes in the proposed street layout and
reconfiguration of the project’s development areas, these infrastructure improvements will need
to be reconfigured to accommodate this proposal.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to revise the previously-approved A-Town Metro
Project by reducing development intensity. The revised A-Town Project would allow between
1,400 and 1,746 residential units; between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses;
and, two public parks that are smaller than originally approved. These changes represent a
reduction of between 935 to 1,281 residential units and between 100,000 to 112,000 square feet
of commercial area as compared to the original A-Town Metro Project. The applicant’s
reasoning for proposing this density reduction is explained later in this staff report. In order, to
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 4 of 15
approve this request, amendments must be approved to the General Plan, PTMLUP, Zoning
Code and the previously-approved Development Agreement and Master Site Plan.
Master Site Plan/Tentative Tract Map:
The proposed Master Site Plan would establish eight Development Areas (A through H) and is
included as an exhibit to the proposed Development Agreement. The individual mixed-use or
residential projects to be developed within each Development Area would be implemented
following review and approval of Final Site Plans for each Development Area. These Final Site
Plans would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at noticed public hearings prior to the
issuance of building permits. As further described later in this staff report, the applicant is
concurrently requesting approval of a Final Site Plan to implement Development Area A of the
proposed Master Site Plan. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract
Map to re-subdivide approximately 36.7 acres of the project site into lots for condominium
purposes and establish the new alignment and configuration of the internal public streets and
public recreation/park areas to be dedicated to the City. The layout of the Tentative Tract Map is
consistent with the Master Site Plan.
Residential Uses:
The applicant’s request significantly reduces the number of permitted residential units in
comparison to the original A-Town Metro Project. The original approval permitted up to 2,681
residences, many of which were proposed in high-rise residential towers. The current proposal
consists of a range of 1,400 to 1,746 residential units, none of which are proposed in residential
towers. The applicant cites changes in the housing market and current and foreseeable economic
conditions as the reason for the reduction in development intensity. To validate these
assumptions, the applicant commissioned and submitted a market study, dated March 2014, by
The Concord Group. This study assesses the current and foreseeable market conditions for high-
rise residential development in the Platinum Triangle. This analysis concluded that high-rise
development was financially viable in the Platinum Triangle when the project was initially
approved; however, it is not feasible under the current market conditions due to higher
construction costs, land costs, and current home prices. Additionally, the study concluded that
reasonable assumptions of price increases within the next 10 years would not offset the cost of
high-rise development. The study concludes that the most viable residential use of the site
consists of low to mid-rise development consistent with the type of construction currently
underway in other areas of the Platinum Triangle. The proposed residential building types would
include a mix for-sale condominiums and for-rent apartments that would be housed in buildings
ranging from three to seven stories in height. Proposed densities within the development areas
range from 16 to 85 dwelling units per acre, which are consistent with the densities permitted by
the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone.
On-Site Parks:
Two public parks are proposed with the revised A-Town Project. The previous project included
one 3-acre park and one .5-acre park. The current proposal also includes two public parks;
however, they have been reduced in size to 1.2 and 0.6 acres each. The reduction in size is
commensurate with the overall reduction in the number of proposed residential units and the
project. The project meets the City’s park space dedication requirements by providing a
minimum of 44 square feet of public park space for each residential unit. The two proposed
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 5 of 15
parks would serve different functions. The 1.2-acre public park is proposed to be centrally
located in the development and will serve as the project’s focal point. This park would be
surrounded by local streets on all four sides that would include on-street public parking available
for park visitors. Amenities in this park would include a child play area, open grass field, shade
structure, water feature, walking paths, and seating areas. The 0.6-acre park is proposed between
Development Areas G and H and will serve as a north-south pedestrian connection through the
A-Town Project. The park is linear in design and would provide a pedestrian friendly area
between residential buildings creating an important link between Gene Autry Way and the
project. Residential units in these two Development Areas would front onto this park. This park
would be designed with features including shelters and furniture, art and sculptures, a bocce ball
court, game tables, and walking paths.
Commercial Uses:
The proposed commercial areas would be located on the ground floor along Market Street.
Additional commercial space would extend northward from Market Street and wrap around the
project’s Katella Avenue frontage to incorporate the Katella/Market Street intersection. It is
anticipated that larger tenants would be located at this intersection, such as a grocery store, and
that smaller neighborhood serving uses would occupy the ground floor spaces along Market
Street, extending down to the park. To justify the proposed reduction in commercial space, the
applicant commissioned and submitted an analysis that evaluates current and foreseeable market
viability for commercial uses within the project area. The analysis was prepared in May 2013 by
Retail Intelligence Advisors (RIA). A Market Update Addendum Letter was prepared in March
2014 to validate the findings of the original report. The key findings and recommendations from
this analysis concluded that:
1. Approximately 48,000 to 98,000 square feet of retail space is viable for the A-Town
site due to the site’s visibility, traffic patterns and area demographics.
2. Retail development is most viable along Katella Avenue because of its traffic volume
and high visibility.
3. Retail development potential along Gene Autry Way is limited due to constrained
access and lower traffic volumes.
4. Retail development along Market Street is very challenged due to limited traffic,
access and visibility.
5. Neighborhood services such as pharmacy and grocery uses that will primarily address
the needs of the area’s residents should be the long-term goal.
In order to validate the conclusions of these analyses, the City commissioned an independent
peer review by its own consultant, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). The findings of KMA’s
peer review were provided in June of 2014. KMA concurred with the study prepared by RIA
and concluded that while the amount of retail proposed by the applicant is on the low end of the
retail viability range, it is appropriate given the site’s visibility and access constraints.
The vision for the Platinum Triangle is to create a dynamic urban place with well-integrated
opportunities for housing, employment, shopping, entertainment and social interaction. This
vision is realized through several principles designed to stimulate market-driven development,
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 6 of 15
achieve a balance of land uses, reinforce transit-oriented development opportunities and create
great neighborhoods through a connected and walkable urban environment. The original A-
Town Metro Project was envisioned to provide a key element of the Platinum Triangle’s
commercial component by providing 150,000 square feet of commercial and retail uses along
Market Street. However, staff recognizes that the area’s market conditions have changed since
the project was first approved ten years ago. Recognizing that the reduction in commercial area
represents a significant modification from the original project, staff spent a significant amount of
time meeting with the applicant and consultants to fully understand the area’s commercial
market conditions and how the current proposal could impact the vision for the Platinum
Triangle. Based upon the information provided from the applicant, including the economic
analyses and the peer review assessment of these studies, staff understands that the assumptions
that formed the basis for the initial level of commercial development on the site no longer exist.
While staff would prefer to see 150,000 square feet of commercial space included in the project,
if mandated, there would be a significant risk of this space ultimately remaining vacant or
underutilized. Staff believes that vacant or underutilized commercial space within the project
would be far more detrimental to the area than allowing a reduced commercial buildout.
Although the initial commercial buildout is not being achieved, staff and the developer worked
closely on the proposed plan to ensure that it would result in a quality, well-designed living
environment. Staff and the developer participated in several meetings to arrive at a project
design that would still achieve the key elements of the Platinum Triangle Vision for this site
which are to provide an urban, walkable environment that would invite pedestrian activity
centered around the commercial uses and centrally-located park.
Master Site Plan:
The proposed Master Site Plan, illustrated below, includes a grid-like street system that would
use Connector Streets and Market Street to serve the development areas and connect the project
site to the surrounding Platinum Triangle community. Connector Streets are a specific type of
street described within the PTMLUP. These local streets are intended to break-up the large
industrial blocks that were in place prior to implementation of the PTMLUP. Connector Streets
within the Platinum Triangle are also intended to provide a pedestrian-friendly local circulation
system. Market Street also has a specific design that is described in the PTMUP. Market Street
is intended to be a walkable neighborhood commercial street that was previously planned to
extend from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way with active ground floor uses for the length of
the street. Market Street and Gene Autry Way are the only streets within the Platinum Triangle
that are required to have ground floor commercial uses.
Signalized entrances at Market Street/Katella Avenue and Union Street/Gene Autry Way would
provide primary access to the Development Areas. Market Street and the project’s Connector
Streets (Westside Drive and Metro Drive) would intersect with Katella Avenue in three
locations. Westside Drive and another Collector Street, Union Street, would intersect with Gene
Autry Way in two locations. As further described below, Market Street would no longer connect
to Gene Autry Way; rather, it would end at its intersection with Meridian Street. In addition,
ground floor commercial uses would not extend south beyond the park, as was provided in the
original A-Town Metro Project. An amendment to the PTMLUP is required to reflect this
change.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 7 of 15
The previously-approved A-Town Metro Master Site Plan included a different street system.
Market Street was central to the previous project and was designed to provide commercial uses
along the first floor of the multi-story residential developments between Katella Avenue to the
north and Gene Autry Way to the south. The current proposal maintains Market Street; however,
the length has been significantly reduced as it would now serve to connect Katella Avenue with
the 1.2-acre public park. Meridian Street, Park Street, and Union Street would surround the
other sides of this park. Union Street would provide the connection to Gene Autry Way. The
proposed commercial areas would be located on the first floor of the residential buildings along
Market Street with some visibility on Katella Avenue and continue south to Meridian Street.
Additional commercial and/or residential amenities would be located on Park Street north of the
public park.
The previously-referenced market studies indicate that the greatest commercial viability exists
for areas located along Market Street between Katella Avenue and Meridian Street, with the
greatest viability along Katella Avenue. The applicant is proposing between 38,000 and 50,000
square feet of commercial space along Market Street and Katella Avenue down to Meridian
Street. While commercial uses are not feasible in the building surrounding the public park
located in the center of the A-Town Project, the applicant has designed the Master Site Plan to
continue to provide ground floor uses that would stimulate activity around the park and
encourage the pedestrian link between the development areas and other properties. The applicant
is proposing to provide a flex space along the ground floor of the building north of the park to
allow commercial uses as well as residential amenities such as leasing offices, physical fitness
centers, meeting rooms, etc. Residential amenity space is also proposed on the ground floor
across from the east end of the park. The ground floor of the building south of the park would
include a combination of residential amenities and a building design that would provide
residential stoops and patios. The residential stoop and patio design would also continue down
Union Street to Gene Autry Way. These residential entrances and gathering areas would allow
pedestrian activity right into the park and commercial areas. In light of a less robust commercial
environment, the plan still fulfills the vision of balancing uses while creating an integrated and
inviting, walkable urban environment.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 8 of 15
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 9 of 15
Master Site Plan Development Summary Table
Development
Area
Area
(Acres1)
Commercial
Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
No. of
Residential
Units (Range)
Residential
Density
Range (du/ac)
Maximum
Height
(Feet)
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
A 5.6 0 0 392 403 70 72 100
B 3.3 21,000 25,000 165 281 50 85 100
C 3.2 17,000 25,000 160 272 50 85 100
D 3.1 0 0 140 217 45 70 100
E 3.1 0 0 93 217 30 70 100
F 4.4 0 0 70 132 16 30 100
G 5.3 0 0 106 159 20 30 100
H 4.5 0 0 90 99 20 22 100
Subtotal 32.5 38,000 50,000 1,400 1,746 43 54 100
Market and
Connector
Streets
6.1
Public Linear
Park 0.6
Public Park 1.2
Total
Project1 40.4 38,000 50,000 1,400 1,746 35 43 100
Arterial
Streets 2.8
Total Site2 43.2 38,000 50,000 1,400 1,746 32 40 100
1 Not including street dedication area.
2 In order to provide flexibility for each Development Area sums of minimum and maximum
target residential units for all Development Areas do not equal the Overall Project
Development Allocation minimum and maximum residential unit requirement of 1,400 units or
1,746 units, respectively.
SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates (August 2015)
Final Site Plan for Development Area A:
In conjunction with the Master Site Plan request, the applicant is requesting approval of the
initial Final Site Plan for the project. This Final Site Plan is for a 5-story, 400-unit apartment
building with a 6-level parking garage. The building is located in Development Area A of the
Master Site Plan which is at the western end of the project site. It is located adjacent to existing
industrial businesses. The apartment building is designed to front onto Katella Avenue and
Westside Drive, wrapped around the parking structure located west of the building. The corner
of Katella Avenue and Westside Drive was designed to include landmark architecture at this key
intersection. This architecture is designed of brick and steel materials that are reminiscent of
classic baseball park architecture. The remainder of the building consists of a contemporary
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 10 of 15
architectural style that includes varying roof heights, differentiating building wall depths,
architectural enhancements including bracketed metal awnings and unique first floor materials
that feature the ground floor uses. The apartment building includes common recreation space in
the form of five courtyards, a pool and spa, clubhouse area, and fitness rooms. The parking
structure would provide 718 parking spaces and 679 spaces are required for this building.
Vehicular access to the building would be provided by two driveways on Westside Drive with
on-street parking available for prospective residents visiting the leasing office.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 and MMP No. 321
An Addendum to FSEIR No. 339 has been prepared to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the revised A-Town Project were fully-disclosed by FSEIR No. 339 or if a subsequent
or supplemental EIR is necessary for this project. The analysis in FSEIR No. 339 included
anticipated build-out of the approved A-Town Metro Project. The proposed project is a
reduction in the development intensity from the approved project. As more thoroughly described
in the Addendum, the proposed A-Town Project is considered to be a refinement of the
development assumptions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and will not require any major revisions
to the Final EIR. The revisions associated with the proposed project have been determined to be
minor and will not result in significant new or more severe impacts and/or the requirement for
additional mitigation measures. As a result, the proposed A-Town Metro does not require the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 has
been created to mitigate the impacts of the proposed A-Town Project and includes all applicable
mitigation measures from FSEIR No. 339.
General Plan Amendment
The applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan to relocate two parks from the previous
project approval. The relocation of these parks requires modification to all figures in the General
Plan that include parks. Park figures are included within the Land Use, Circulation and Green
Elements of the General Plan. This amendment will reflect the change in size and location as
well as the proposed street layout on the maps identifying the parks in various General Plan
maps.
Before the Planning Commission may approve a General Plan Amendment, it must make a
finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City;
3) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and
4) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access,
physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 11 of 15
The proposed changes to the General Plan do not create inconsistencies with applicable goals
and policies. Applicable goals and policies relate to creating dynamic, identifiable places for the
benefit of Anaheim residents, employees and visitors, and encouraging mixed-use and
commercial development that provide safe, protected places for pedestrians to walk, attractive
surroundings, opportunities for social interaction, and comfortable places to sit and relax.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested General Plan Amendment.
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
(PTMLUP) to reconfigure the local street network, revise street cross-sections, modify ground
floor commercial/retail use locations, delete the A-Town Public Realm Landscape and Identity
Program, and adjust to the district boundaries for the Katella and Gene Autry Districts. The
Anaheim Municipal Code does not require specific findings for approval of an amendment to a
Master Land Use Plan; however, because a Master Land Use Plan is somewhat similar to a
Specific Plan, staff believes the following findings typically associated the approval of a Specific
Plan Amendment should be considered. For the purpose of clarity, the term “Specific Plan” has
been replaced with “Master Land Use Plan”:
1) That the Master Land Use Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, and with the purposes, standards and land use guidelines therein;
2) That the Master Land Use Plan results in development of desirable character that will be
compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood;
3) That Master Land Use Plan contributes to a balance of land uses throughout the City;
and
4) That the Master Land Use Plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources
consistent with economic realities.
The amendment to the Master Land Use Plan was designed to be consistent with the General
Plan by continuing to promote mixed-use development that balances commercial, residential,
and recreation uses in a neighborhood that is compatible to the surrounding developments
through local streets and pedestrian friendly linkages. The proposed amendments would result in
a community of desirable character that would be compatible with existing and proposed
development in the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
requested amendments to the PTMLUP.
Zoning Code Amendment:
The requested Zoning Code amendments would modify the requirement to provide ground floor
commercial uses along Market Street and modify standards related to on-street and tandem
parking. The amendment would accommodate the changes identified in the Master Land Use
Plan that modify the location of the ground floor commercial uses along Market Street. In 2014,
the City Council amended the Zoning Code to allow tandem parking in the City’s Multiple-
Family Residential Zones. This proposed amendment would permit the same type of tandem
parking within apartment communities in the Platinum Triangle. It would also permit
perpendicular street parking on connector streets where only angled parking was previously
permitted.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 12 of 15
The Zoning Code may be amended upon a finding that the action is necessary to implement the
General Plan and will enhance and preserve the general welfare. The proposed Zoning Code
changes are consistent with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and the PTMLUP and
would help implement these changes. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested
Zoning Code amendments.
Development Agreement:
The applicant has proposed an amended and restated development agreement to correspond with
the proposed changes to the development. A development agreement is a contract for
development which provides a property owner or developer a vested right to proceed with an
approved development, “freezing” the entitlement along with established regulations and fees, in
exchange for the City obtaining benefits beyond what would otherwise be required by existing
regulations and ordinances. State law allows cities and project applicants to enter into a
development agreement for their mutual benefit. A development agreement between a property
owner and the City is required for development in the Platinum Triangle. The proposed
amended and restated development agreement would provide the applicant with the certainty
desired to develop the A-Town project and in return would provide amenities in the Platinum
Triangle that otherwise would not have been required. These amenities include not only
commercial locations but the opportunity for the City to operate a 20,000 square foot community
center and library in the project area adjacent to the park. The development agreement outlines
timeframes for this development and establishes milestones for the completion of components of
the project.
In 1982 the City Council approved a resolution establishing procedures and requirements for the
consideration of development agreements. This resolution identifies four items necessary for the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council. These items are:
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan;
and
2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized
in, and the regulations prescribed for, the applicable zoning district(s) in which
the Revised Project is and will be located; and
3. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the orderly
development of property in the surrounding area; and
4. The proposed Development Agreement is not otherwise detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Through thorough research and review for the this project, staff believes that the proposed
project and development agreement meet the requirements listed above and therefore,
recommends approval of the Development Agreement as it serves to provide surety for the
developer and includes benefits to the City including community amenities such as space for the
City to develop and operate a community center.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 13 of 15
Master Site Plan: The Planning Director is typically the approval authority for a Master Site
Plan. Before the Planning Director may approve a Master Site Plan, he or she must make a
finding as to its conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and PTMLUP. In
that the proposed Master Site Plan cannot be approved without approval of amendment to the
General Plan, PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone, the Planning Director has elected to refer this
decision to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. If the proposed
amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone are approved, the Master
Site Plan would be in conformance with said documents. Staff recommends approval of the
Master Site Plan because it is consistent with the General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan and will establish a quality mixed-use development centrally located in the
Platinum Triangle.
Tentative Tract Map
A tract map is proposed to reconfigure the development areas and redesign the street system to
accommodate the proposed development. The purpose of the Commission’s consideration of a
tentative map is to review the proposed subdivision for consistency with the General Plan and
Zoning Code. The proposed subdivision would comply with all of the development standards of
the PTMU Overlay zone. The subdivision would also be in conformance with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, which includes the following goals:
• Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address
the City’s diverse housing needs.
• Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image
and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
• Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
• Goal 5.1 Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of
Anaheim residents, employees and visitors.
• Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through
strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development.
In addition to ensuring that the tentative tract map is consistent with the City’s General
Plan, the following findings from the Subdivision Map Act must also be made:
1. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed
Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, including its design and improvements, is
consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490;
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed Project as represented on the Master Site Plan;
3. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 17703, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive
environmental habitat has been identified;
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 14 of 15
4. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 17703, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems; and
5. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 17703, or the type of improvements would not conflict with
easements acquired by the public, at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
The design of the tentative map is consistent with the General Plan as identified in the previously
referenced General Plan goals and suitable for the type and density of the project. As analyzed
in the Draft Addendum to FSEIR No. 339, the proposed map would not cause substantial
environmental damage or serious public health problems or conflict with any easements for or on
the property. For these reasons staff believes that the proposed tentative tract map meets
findings required by the Subdivision Map Act and recommends its approval.
Final Site Plan: Before the Planning Commission may approve a Final Site Plan application, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan,
any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials,
texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately
maintained; and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed Final Site Plan was designed to be consistent with the General Plan and the
PTMLUP, as well as the PTMU Overlay Zone. The layout of the development is compatible
with the proposed street configuration of the A-Town Master Site Plan and with the adjacent
industrial properties to the west. Staff believes that this apartment project would not interfere
with the use or enjoyment of the neighboring and future developments that that this property
would create a desirable urban environment for the residents. For these reasons staff
recommends approval of the Final Site Plan.
REVISED A-TOWN PROJECT
September 9, 2015
Page 15 of 15
CONCLUSION: The proposed A-Town Project is a carefully designed and planned project that
addresses the current and projected market conditions while maintaining the vision of the
Platinum Triangle. The project also conforms to the PTMLUP and PTMU Overlay Zone as
revised and amended. Staff believes that the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan and that the proposed development would be an
appropriate addition to the Platinum Triangle. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Summary of Project Actions
2. Draft CEQA Resolution
3. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution
a. General Plan Exhibits
4. Draft PTMLUP Amendment Resolution
a. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
5. Draft Zoning Code Amendment Resolution
a. Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone
6. Draft Development Agreement Resolution
a. Development Agreement
b. Master Site Plan
c. Conditions of Approval
7. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution
a. Tentative Tract Map
8. Draft Final Site Plan Resolution
a. Final Site Plan
9. Letter of Request/Justification
10. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda
11. Market Studies
Attachment “C”:
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339
AND ADDENDA
On October 26, 2010, the City Council City Council certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" (FSEIR No. 339) in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overla y Zone, and related zoning
reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the PTMU Overlay
Zone to allow up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Three addenda to EIR No. 339 have been subsequently approved in connection with the Katella
Avenue/I-5 undercrossing improvements and revisions to the Platinum Gateway and Platinum
Vista projects. These projects included changes to the maximum permitted development intensity,
which now permits up to 19,027 residential uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 has been prepared to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the proposed A-Town Development Area B Project were fully-disclosed b y FSEIR No.
339 or if a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary for this project. The analysis in FSEIR
No. 339 included anticipated build-out of the previously-approved A-Town Metro Project. As more
thoroughl y described in the Addendum, the proposed A-Town Project is considered to be a
refinement of the development assumptions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and will not require any
major revisions to the Final EIR.
FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved
in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the proposed A-
Town Project, are available on the City’s website at: http://www.anaheim.net/1075/Report-
Number-339.
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
SUBJECT: AREA B DEV2020-00287, FSP2021-00002, CUP2021-06109, AND MIS2021-
00776
AREA E DEV2020-00288, FSP2021-00003, AND CUP2021-06113
ADDRESS: Area B: 1807, 1819, 1825, 1831, and 1837 Market Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
Area E: 1820 Metro Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805
APN: Area B: 232-121-30
Area E: 232-121-33
LOCATION: Area B: Southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Market Street
Area E: East of the intersection of Park Street and Metro Drive and West of State College
Boulevard
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
R Aesthetics £ Agricultural & Forest Resources R Air Quality
£ Biological Resources R Cultural Resources £ Geology / Soils
R Greenhouse Gas Emissions R Hazards & Hazardous Materials R Hydrology/Water
Quality
R Land Use / Planning £ Mineral Resources R Noise
R Population / Housing R Public Services R Recreation
R Transportation / Traffic R Utilities / Service Systems R Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
£ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
£ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
£ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
£ I find 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 earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
ATTACHMENT 7
R I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative
Andy T. Uk, Associate Planner
Printed Name, Title
Date
(714) 765-4958
Phone Number
December 28, 2021
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used, or individuals
contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less
Than Significant impacts”.
d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture
zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration (§ 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the
General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 1
Project Setting
The Project Site includes two development areas of the A-Town Master Site Plan: Development Area B
(Lot 1, Tract No. 17703), approximately 3.2-acres; and Development Area E (Lot 4, Tract No. 17703),
approximately 3.1-acres. Collectively, Development Areas B and E are the “Project Sites” in this document.
Development Area B is located at the southwest corner of East Katella Avenue and South Market Street,
and Development Area E is located approximately 135 feet south of the intersection of East Katella Avenue
and South State Colle Boulevard. The Project Sites are part of the A-Town Master Site plan approved by
City Council in 2015 that permitted development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and between
38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. Development Area B is entitled for residential
development within the range of 165 to 281 dwelling units (50-85 dwelling units per acre); and, for 21,000
to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Development Area E is entitled for residential development
within the range of 93 to 217 dwelling units (30-70 dwelling units per acre). The Project Sites are currently
undeveloped but have been “rough-graded” and the Property Owner/Developer has completed the majority
of the infrastructure within the A-Town Master Site Plan.
The following describes the surrounding uses of each development area:
Development Area B
North: East Katella Avenue with multiple family residential uses across East Katella Avenue;
East: South Market Street, undeveloped A-Town Development Area C, and Aloe Greens Park;
South: East Meridian Street, multiple family residential in A-Town Development Area H, and Aloe
Promenade; and
West: South Westside Drive and multiple family residential in A-Town Development Area A.
Development Area E
North: Automobile service station with a convenience market;
East: South State College Boulevard and multiple family residential uses across South State College
Boulevard;
South: Southern California Gas Company; and
West: South Metro Drive and undeveloped A-Town Development Area F
Project Background
In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update
that established a new vision for the Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update
created new land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for existing,
largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. This General
Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which
at that time permitted up to 9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses.
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and the
Platinum Triangle Master Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum
Triangle. Under these updated zoning regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 2
Agreement between property owners and the City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU
Overlay Zone.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332
(FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP and Zoning
Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum
Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of
commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of the related
actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC to construct the A-
Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential units; 150,000 square feet of
commercial uses; two public parks; and a network of local streets. An addendum to FSEIR 332 was
prepared and approved as part of the A-Town Metro Project. On November 8, 2005, City Council approved
a Development Agreement for the A-Town Metro Project/. On December 13, 2005, the City recorded the
A-Town Metro Project’s Development Agreement. On December 16, 2008, City Council approved an
amendment to the Development Agreement to allow additional time to complete certain milestones. On
February 23, 2009, the City recorded the amended Development Agreement.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
(FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, PTMU
Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within
the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square
feet of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional
uses. Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum
development intensities to up to 17,501 residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243
square feet of commercial uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in conjunction with
its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone, and an amended and
restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan for the revised A-Town Metro
Project. This revised project permitted development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and
between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets
within the A-Town Metro Project area (Refer to Figure I-1, A-Town Metro Project). The City Council
also approved the Final Site Plan for the first phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a 400-unit apartment
project with a 6-story parking structure in Development Area A.
Figure I-1
A-Town Metro Project
Source: Hunsaker & Associates, December 2013.
REMNANT GENE AUTRY WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED( 2,487 SF/0.05 AC)
CONNECTOR STREETSMARKET STREET
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 4
Project Description
Area B
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use structure in Development Area B of the A-Town Master Site Plan.
The proposed structure will consist of eight-levels, with one subterranean level and seven levels above
grade. The structure will include 270 residential dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground
floor commercial space with 505 square feet of accessory outdoor dining space. The number of residential
units and commercial floor space is consistent with the development allocation for Development Area B of
the A-town Master Site plan of 165 to 281 residential dwelling units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of
commercial floor space. The project will have a residential density of 82 dwelling units per acre, consistent
with the development allocation of 50 to 85 dwelling units per acre for Development Area B of the A-Town
Master Site Plan. Figure I-2, Proposed Site Plan-Development Area B, shows the proposed site plan.
The project will include ground-floor residential units along South Westside Drive and East Meridian
Street. The project’s ground-floor commercial space will consist of a 16,163 square foot market at the
corner of South Market Street and East Katella Avenue and three, inline, commercial tenant spaces along
South Market Street. Residential dwelling units will range in size from approximately 724 square feet to
1,341 square feet. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 168 one-bedroom units and 102 two-
bedroom units.
The applicant is proposing a modification to the Ground Floor Use Diagram of the approved A-Town
Master Site Plan to replace commercial space with residential amenity space at the southeast corner of the
structure. The applicant proposes to replace residential stoops and patios with residential amenity space at
the northwest and southwest corners of the structure. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for above ground-mounted utility facilities to be located within the East Katella Avenue structural
setback. These facilities include electrical transformer, water meter, backflow, and fire department
connections. The applicant will provide enhanced landscaping between the equipment and the sidewalk to
screen the equipment. The applicant is also proposing an amended Parking Management Plan to update on-
street parking totals for East Meridian Street and South Westside Drive to accommodate the building’s
access points and on-street loading area. The Parking Management Plan is subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
Common area improvements for residents will include a first-floor fitness center, pet spa area, mailroom,
and a leasing office. The third floor will include an open recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck,
outdoor seating, barbecue, residential dining areas, a co-working space, and a clubroom. The seventh floor
will include an open deck area with two enclosed amenity spaces and outdoor seating.
The applicant is proposing a contemporary architectural style with street-level articulation along all four
street frontages, and a variety of materials and building articulation. Materials proposed include wood fiber-
cement board, metal panels, commercial storefront glazing, and stucco in a variety of colors. The project
design locates the largest massing along East Katella Avenue and South Market Street with a maximum
height of 86 feet. The applicant is proposing smaller intermediate massing along South Westside Drive and
East Meridian Street.
The project will provide 607 vehicular parking spaces within the podium base in three levels: one level
underground, one level at grade, and one level above grade. The Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) requires
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 5
a minimum of 456 parking spaces for the proposed 270 residential units. The project is proposing to provide
466 residential parking spaces. The AMC requires a minimum of 137 parking spaces for the proposed
22,173 square feet of commercial space. The project is proposing to provide 141 commercial parking
spaces.
Vehicles will access the parking spaces for the market and the commercial tenants from a driveway on
South Market Street, approximately 350 feet south of East Katella Avenue; the driveway will provide access
to ground-level parking spaces. Vehicular access for the residents will be located on East Meridian Street
in two driveways. The first residential driveway will be located near South Market Street and will provide
access for residents and guests to parking spaces on the third level of the parking structure. The second
residential driveway will be located near South Westside Drive and will provide access for residents to
parking spaces in the subterranean level of the parking structure. The applicant is proposing a loading dock
with vehicular access on South Westside Drive, approximately 70 feet south of East Katella Avenue, to
serve the market.
Figure I-2
Conceptual Site Plan-Area B
Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, October 2021.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 7
Area E
The applicant is proposing a multiple-family structure in Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site
Plan. The proposed structure will consist of a five-level multiple-family structure wrapping a six-level
parking structure. The multiple-family structure will include 257 dwelling units (for-rent) which is greater
than the development allocation for Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site Plan of 93 to 217
residential dwelling units. The project will have a residential density of 80.3 dwelling units per acre, which
is greater than the target residential density allocation for Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site
Plan of 30 to 70 dwelling units per acre. Residential dwelling units will range in size from approximately
551 square feet to 962 square feet. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 89 studio units, 118 one-
bedroom units, and 50 two-bedroom units.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the transfer 40 units of from various
Development Areas within the A-Town Metro Project to Development Area E, to accommodate the
increase in residential dwelling units and residential density. The applicant is proposing to transfer 20 units
from Development Area F, five units from Development Area G, and 15 units from Development Area H.
Section 10 of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 approved by the City
Council for the A-Town Metro Project allows for transfer of unused residential dwelling units to
Development Areas that do not already have approved Final Site Plans. Figure I-2, Proposed Site Plan-
Development Area E, shows the proposed site plan.
Common area improvements for residents will include a first-floor amenity room, lobby, and leasing office
fronting South Metro Drive. A recreation courtyard will be located along the south side of the structure
with a pool, spa, sun deck, barbeque areas, and outdoor seating. Two smaller, passive, recreation courtyards
will be located along the east side of the structure facing South State College Boulevard with seating, picnic
areas, and landscaping. In addition, a pedestrian plaza will be located off the project’s street frontage on
South Metro Drive and include seating and landscaping.
The project is proposing a contemporary architectural style with street-level articulation along the South
Metro Drive and South State College Boulevard street frontages. Materials proposed include commercial
storefront glazing for the leasing office, decorative panels, and stucco in a variety of colors. The parking
structure located along the northern frontage, and visible from East Katella Avenue and South State College
Boulevard, will incorporate the proposed building massing, provide openings for ventilation that will
resemble windows, and include stucco in a variety of colors to screen the parking structure from view. The
majority of the structure is between 50 feet to 65 feet in height. The largest massing will be located at the
terminus of East Park Street and above the pedestrian plaza with a maximum height of 70 feet.
The project will provide 396 vehicular parking spaces within the six level above ground parking structure.
The AMC requires a minimum of 388 parking spaces for the proposed 257 residential units. Vehicular
access to the parking structure will be located on South Metro Drive, approximately 170 feet south of East
Katella Avenue.
Figure I-3
Conceptual Site Plan-Area E
Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 2021.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 9
Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339.
This environmental document is a checklist to identify whether Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 (SEIR No. 339), including its subsequent addenda (see description of addenda and Table 1
below), adequately analyzed the potential impacts of the Project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and
that no further environmental review is necessary. SEIR No. 339 was prepared to address the
implementation of the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan (PTIP) and discretionary approvals
associated with the Approved Project: General Plan Amendment No. 2008‐00471, amendments to the
PTMLUP, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, Zoning Reclassification No.
2008‐00222, and the Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. SEIR No. 339 addressed the potential
impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems,
and greenhouse gas emissions. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
address significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Approved Project.
Nine Addenda have been previously prepared to address modifications to the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project. Table 1, SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table, provides a brief summary for each
project within the Platinum Triangle for which the City Council approved an addendum. The City Council
approved amendments to the land use assumptions in Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, in
conjunction with Addendum No. 2-6, through the approval of amendments to the Anaheim General Plan,
the PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone. These documents, as amended, currently permit development of
up to 17,501 residential units; 4,782,243 square feet of commercial uses; 13,659,103 square feet of office
uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone. In addition, in 2020,
the City Council approved a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Stadium
District Sub-Area A Project. This project creates the framework for the development of Sub-Area A of the
Stadium District of the PTMU Overlay Zone pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and the Applicant and a Master Site Plan; refer to Table 2, SCEA Summary
Table.
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
Addendum 1: Katella Avenue/
Interstate 5 Undercrossing
Improvements Project
April 2012
Widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with the I‐5 between Anaheim Way
and Manchester Avenue and to create a fourth through lane of traffic in each
direction of travel. Maintain dual left‐turn pockets at both intersections. The
project area spans approximately 1,000 feet along Katella Avenue, with an area
of disturbance encompassing approximately1.95 acres.
Addendum 2: Platinum
Gateway Project
December 2012
Develop a 4‐story wrap‐style residential building with 399 dwelling units, a 5‐
story parking structure, and public park on 7.01 acres. Amend the Anaheim
General Plan and the PTMLUP to increase the total number of dwelling units to
18,988 dwelling units; reduce the commercial square footage to 4,795,111 square
feet; reduce the office square footage to 4,131,103 square feet; and no change to
institutional uses: 1,500,000 square feet.
Addendum 3: Platinum Vista
Apartments Project
October 2014
Develop a 5‐story wrap‐style residential apartment building with 389 units and
a 6‐story parking structure (including one subterranean parking level). Amend
the Anaheim General Plan and the PTMLUP to allow up to19,027 dwelling units;
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 10
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum 4: Amended
A‐Town Metro Master
Site Plan August 2015
Construct eight neighborhood Development Areas ranging in size from 3.1 acres
to 5.6 acres on the 43.2‐acre site. Develop between 1,400 and 1,746 residential
dwelling units; up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses; and two public
parks.
Addendum 5: Jefferson
Stadium Park Project
June 2016
Develop a mixed‐use community with 1,079 residential apartments; 14,600
square feet of retail uses; and a 1.11‐acre public park. Building 1is a 5‐story
wrap‐style building with 370 units; Building 2 is a 5‐storywrap‐style building
with 376 units; Building 3 is a 4‐story podium building with 333 units and 14,600
square feet of retail space. Amend the Anaheim General Plan to relocate and
combine two park sites into one park site. Amend the PTMLUP to allow for
18,909 dwelling units; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; 14,340,522
square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum 6: LT Platinum
Center Development Project
September 2016
Mixed‐use development with 405 dwelling units; 433,000 gross square feet of
commercial uses; a 200‐room hotel; 77,000 gross square feet of office uses.
Amend the Anaheim General Plan and the PTMLUP to revise the district
boundaries to change the LT Platinum Center site from the Gateway District to
the Stadium District; reduce the maximum dwelling units to 17,348 units;
increase the maximum commercial uses to 4,782,243 square feet; reduce the
maximum office space to 9,180,747 square feet; and remove the designation of
a public park from the site.
Addendum 7: Gene Autry
Way and State College
Boulevard Improvements
Project
March 2017
Widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six lanes with medians and storm
drain and stormwater improvements; to widen the west side of State College
Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a
southbound right‐turn lane and a third through‐lane; and to make improvements
to the east side of the intersection of State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way,
which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Angel Stadium).
Additionally, a new intersection on Gene Autry at Union Street would be
constructed to provide access to planned development areas.
Addendum 8: Orangewood
Avenue Improvements (From
State College Boulevard to
the Santa Ana River) and
Eastside of State College
Boulevard Improvements
(From Orangewood Avenue
to Artisan Court)
March 2018
Widen Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Dupont Drive and
from Dupont Drive to the Santa Ana River from four lanes to six lanes with the
addition of right-turn lanes. Widen State College Boulevard to four lanes
between Orangewood Avenue and Artisan Court; north of Artisan Court, the
outside lane would become a right-turn pocket into the Angel Stadium of
Anaheim parking lots. Road widening to add a new northbound right-turn lane
at the Orangewood Avenue Intersection with Rampart Street. Roadway
improvements (sidewalk, relocated utilities, landscape planters, block walls, etc.)
that were not considered in SEIR No. 339 are also analyzed.
Addendum 9: Orangewood
Avenue Improvements
(From the Santa Ana River to
East of SR-57) (under
preparation)
Widen Orangewood Avenue from a five‐lane roadway to a six‐lane divided
facility to provide expanded bicycle and pedestrian access from the Santa Ana
River to just east of State Route 57 (SR-57) at the SR-57/Orangewood Avenue
interchange. The Proposed Project would also include a water pipeline connection
in Orangewood Avenue right-of-way, generally beginning at Rampart Street and
ending to the east at Eckhoff Street. In addition, the Proposed Project includes a
change to the jurisdictional boundaries between the City of Anaheim and the City
of Orange, west of the western levee of the Santa Ana River, north and south or
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 11
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
Orangewood Avenue. This proposed reorganization includes amendments to the
Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP, and other related
documents to reflect the new City boundary and potential future use of the
affected property.
Addendum 10: 710 E. Katella
General Plan, Zoning Map
and Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
Amendments (under
preparation)
Amend the Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP to
allow the development of up to 120 dwelling units at 710–818 East Katella
Avenue and 1815 South Lewis Street. Development of the project site would be
subject to the requirements of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU)
Overlay Zone, including but not limited to, subsequent City Council approval of
a Development Agreement.
Addendum 11: OC Vibe
Project
General Plan, Zoning Map
and Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
Amendments (under
preparation)
Amend the Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP to
allow the development of proposed new homes, shopping, dining, entertainment,
parks and open spaces around Honda Center and ARTIC transit center.
Table 2
SCEA Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
SCEA: Stadium District
Sub-Area A Project
September 2020
The Stadium District Sub-Area A Project creates the framework for the
development of Sub-Area A of the Stadium District of the PTMU Overlay Zone
pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and the Applicant and a Master Site Plan to allow development of Sub-
Area of the Stadium District with up to the development intensities described.
Land Use
Stadium District Sub-Area A
Project
Residential (dwelling units) 5,175
Commercial (square feet) 1,750,000
Office (square feet) 2,700,000
Stadium (seats) 45,500
Public Parks (acres) 10-13
Fire Station One station on 1.5 acres
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 12
I. AESTHETICS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? £ £ £ R £
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, limitation trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
£ £ £ R £
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
£ £ £ R £
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle area is highly urbanized with industrial, commercial, and recreational uses, which do not exhibit any significant
geographic features or visual resources of importance. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 339 determined that the
overall boundaries of the Platinum Triangle do not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide undisturbed or unique vistas,
and/or that are officially recognized by a local, State, or federal agency.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no officially recognized local, State, or federal‐level scenic resources are located in the Platinum Triangle.
The only Officially Designated State Scenic Highway located close to the Platinum Triangle is State Route 91 (SR‐91) from State Route
55 (SR‐55) to east of the City limits, SEIR No. 339 concluded that the Platinum Triangle would not be easily visible due to distance and
sound walls. As there are no scenic resources located in the Platinum Triangle area, proposed development on Areas B and E
development would not directly impact a scenic resource. In addition, Area B development, eight stories, and Area E development, 5-
stories, would not obscure views of distant scenic resources due to intervening buildings and topography. Additionally, Areas B and E
developments would not be visible from the Officially Designated Scenic Highway segment of SR‐91, which is located over three miles
to the north, due to obstruction by nearby development and sound walls surrounding the highway. For these reasons, no impacts to
scenic resources would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings associated with the proposed
development in the Platinum Triangle, including the changes in residential and nonresidential land uses and modifications to the existing
circulation system. Findings in SEIR No. 339 confirmed that compliance with provisions of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan (PTMLUP) would result in the creation of individual projects that are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 discussed impacts related to shade and shadows, including shade and shadows potentially generated
by the medium‐ to high‐rise structures allowed in the Platinum Triangle with a typical building height of 100 feet, with some exceptions.
The SEIR concluded that impacts to the visual character or quality of the Platinum Triangle would be less than significant with the
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 1‐1, which require, prior to Final Site Plan approval, analysis of shade on properties
sensitive to shadows for individual projects proposed within the Platinum Triangle. The proposed buildings for Area B and Area E
would be approximately 100 feet in height and would be within the expected limits of the analysis provided in SEIR No. 339.
Many iconic buildings and structures exist in the area surrounding the Project Area that provide landmarks to orient residents and visitors
and provide the City with a visual image and aesthetic. Two examples provided in SEIR No. 339 include the large “A” outside Angel
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 13
Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. Due to distance with intervening structures and topography, the proposed buildings for
Areas B and E would not create barriers to viewing or obscure visibility of prominent local landmarks from the Project Area.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts related to the creation of light and glare. The buildout of the area would introduce many new sources of
nighttime illumination related to buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, roadways, and parks. The proposed developments for
Area B and Area E are consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan density of 82 dwelling units
per net acre. The developments include common area improvements such as landscape walkways, recreation courtyards, passive
courtyards, pools, spas, sun decks and lounge areas. According to SEIR No.339, the light and glare impacts would be minimized through
compliance with the PTMLUP. Furthermore, the majority of lighting associated with the proposed development on Areas B and E would
be directed internal to each Project Site itself, away from neighboring land uses. Therefore, interior and exterior lights on the Project
Site would not shine directly onto light-sensitive uses and would not result in light trespass.
No changes in circumstances involving each proposed development at Areas B and E have occurred; therefore, these Projects would not
result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are
now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with aesthetics would occur because of the Project, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
£ £ £ R £
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act Contract? £ £ £ R £
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12222(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
£ £ £ R £
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? £ £ £ R £
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 14
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Local Importance in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity, including Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on agricultural resources and no mitigation was necessary. The 2014 Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the Project Areas B and E as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Additionally, there are no active
farming activities within the Project Areas B and E. Therefore, the development of Areas B and E, which have both been substantially
altered as a result of grading and past development, would not affect any Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance due to the extent of urbanization in the area. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339, and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no areas zoned for agriculture exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Additionally, no
lands covered by existing Williamson Act contracts are located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the buildout
of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. There are no areas zoned for agriculture or covered under
Williamson Act contracts within the Project Areas B and E. Therefore, the Projects would not impact land zoned for agricultural use or
covered by a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss, conversion, or rezoning of forestland. The Platinum Triangle is substantially
developed and is not suitable for forestry and/or timber resources. There is no zoning for forest land in the City of Anaheim and no areas
within the City classified as forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526. The City of Anaheim has no land
zoned for forest or timberland, including Areas B and E and the surrounding area. Therefore, the Projects would not conflict with any
existing zoning for forest or timberland and would not cause rezoning of any forest or timberland. No impacts to forest or timberland
would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity
of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss or conversion of forestland. However, the Platinum Triangle does not support
forestry and/or timber resources. The Project Sites are in a highly urbanized area and not zoned for forest or timberlands. Therefore, the
development of Areas B and E would not conflict with existing forest or timberland and would not cause loss or conversion of any forest
or timberland. No impacts to forest land would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Projects would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest/timberlands are present in the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 determined that
no areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Additionally,
no existing Williamson Act contracts cover land within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP
would have no impact on these agricultural resources. No areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the
Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Therefore, the Projects would not impact agricultural practices or any agriculturally zoned
lands within the Project Areas B and E and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the conversion of Area B, a vacant, undeveloped property
to a mixed-use, and the conversion of Area E, a vacant undeveloped property to a residential use, would not result in new impacts or
impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available
now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of
SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore,
no new impacts associated with agricultural and forest resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not
increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 15
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? £ £ £ R £
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
£ £ £ R £
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? £ £ £ R £
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses all of Orange County (County) and portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB regional emissions inventory is compiled by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SEIR No. 339 states that the
development of the PTMLUP would result in overall increased trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Platinum Triangle area due
to increased density of development. Although there would be an increase in trips and VMT locally, the development of the PTMLUP
would provide a net benefit to the SCAG region because it creates mixed‐ use residential development closer to employment centers.
This decreases average trip length because employment, services, and housing would all be in close proximity to each other. This also
reduces the need for the residents to travel long distances for commercial and entertainment centers. The Adopted PTMLUP was
determined to be consistent with SCAG’s strategies to reduce VMT in the region and was determined to be consistent with the 2007 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which was applicable to the PTMLUP. Therefore, the impacts relative to project consistency with
the AQMP are considered less than significant in SEIR No. 339.
SCAQMD has thresholds which are used to evaluate a project’s emissions and determine if there would be a potential significant impact
related to construction or operation of the project. SCAQMD suggests that lead agencies evaluate both regional and localized impacts
for the project. The City uses the thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as
updated in 2015). SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the PTMLUP would potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute to existing or future air quality violations. The construction and operational activities associated with the buildout of the
PTMLUP, including a 270 residential mixed-use on Area B and a 257 residential use on Area E, would result in a substantial increase
in short‐ and long‐term air pollutants. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 to reduce
the potential air quality impacts during construction and operation of future Platinum Triangle projects. The mitigation measures focus
on improving the efficiency of vehicles and require the use of materials in responsible ways to limit the release of pollutants that may
violate existing air quality standards for the Platinum Triangle area and the County during construction and operation. However, even
with these mitigation measures, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PTMLUP would potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the
criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (ozone
[O3], particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10], and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size [PM2.5]). SEIR No. 339
found that the construction and operational activities associated with the PTMLUP would create short‐ and long‐term pollutants
exceeding the regional significance thresholds established by SCAQMD, including PM10, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOC),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX) from construction, and carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 from
operations. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified land use plan, would
result in a decrease in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the amount of pollutants emitted into the air basin
associated with long‐term, operations would be less than the emissions originally anticipated to occur as, which would result in
approximately 49 percent more (long‐term) pollutant emissions compared to the proposed Revised A‐Town Metro project because there
would be substantially less traffic. Potential impacts would be less when compared to the prior analysis of cumulative air quality impacts;
nonetheless, Project implementation would contribute to the significant cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, the SEIR No. 339
required incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 would be implemented to reduce significant
impacts as stated above. Even with Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, however, the air quality impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 16
were determined to be significant and unavoidable; therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when
SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the implementation of the PTMLUP had the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. During construction, projects within the Platinum Triangle would create temporary emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, SOX,
PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 based
on the ambient pollutant concentration of each pollutant and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the Areas B and E are the occupants of multiple‐family residential dwelling units located north of Katella Avenue. Pollutants
resulting from project implementation would occur during the construction phase and following completion and occupancy/use of the
Sites. The emissions would comprise mostly of dust and particulate materials during the construction phase that would be dispersed in
the area of operations. Such emissions would be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by
the SCAQMD and SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐ 5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9.
In addition, during the operation of the PTMLUP, sensitive land uses, including residential and recreational uses, would be located near
major pollutant sources, including Interstate 5 (I‐5) and State Route 57 (SR‐57). However, the A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan
project area is located beyond the 500‐foot freeway buffer area. Furthermore, there is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation
congestion and CO impacts since exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO, which is a localized gas that
dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based
on the proposed modified land use plan would result in a decrease in the number of vehicles generated at local intersections within the
vicinity of Areas B and E. Further, the proportion of project‐related vehicle trips is small in relation to the volume of traffic at local
intersections. Therefore, CO concentrations at the critical intersections would not be exceeded based on buildout of the Platinum Triangle
as previously approved and because vehicle trips would be reduced, the development of Areas B and E would also not contribute to a
CO concentration exceedance at the key study intersection and would not, therefore, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations at those intersections.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that the odors generated during construction would dissipate before reaching sensitive receptors. An occasional
“whiff” of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks on public roadways may result; however, SEIR No. 339 concluded that
these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the industrial land uses within the Platinum Triangle would generally be non‐
odorous. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, “Nuisance,” would safeguard the community from any odors from food preparation in
restaurants and the residential uses.
Land uses that result in or create objectionable odors typically include agriculture (e.g., livestock and farming), wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, etc. Some industrial uses are located west of the A‐Town
Metro; including a gas station located directly north of Area E. However, as indicated in SEIR No. 339, odors generated by land uses
within the Platinum Triangle must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the generation of odors that cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of people. SEIR
No. 339 found that odor impacts from placement of new residential land uses near existing odor generators would be less than significant
with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2‐ 10, which requires odor assessment for projects that would be located within 1,000 feet
of an existing industrial facility.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new air
quality impacts would occur as a result of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 17
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulation, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
£ £ £ R £
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
£ £ £ R £
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
£ £ £ R £
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
£ £ £ R £
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is a built‐out environment with no natural resources and no native biological
resources reside within the area, including on Areas B and E. Although the Project Site are both currently undeveloped, they were
previously developed with commercial uses that have been removed. At the present time, the Sites areas devoid of any native plant or
animal species. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special‐ status species would occur, and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special‐status
species. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to biological resources identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur and no mitigation
was necessary. No new significant biological resources are identified in the Anaheim General Plan either for the Sites or for the
immediate Project Area, which is highly urbanized. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the
Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain wetlands. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated
with federally protect wetlands would occur and no mitigation was necessary. Areas B and E are partially covered with impervious
surfaces in the form of streets that have been constructed as part of the approved master plan of development for A‐Town Metro. The
Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no
mitigation is necessary. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR
No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain areas associated with wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Areas
B and E are in an area of the City that is extensively urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and/or native species. The Sites have been
significantly altered and previously supported commercial land uses, which have since been removed in anticipation of buildout of the
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 18
Platinum Triangle and, specifically, the development of the A‐Town Metro land use plan. SEIR No. 339 found no impacts associated
with migratory wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Projects would
not expand the area of the Platinum Triangle or be located outside the original Project Area. In addition, the Project Area does not provide
suitable native wildlife nursery habitat.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP was not subject to a tree preservation ordinance or other local regulation protecting
biological resources. As indicated above, no new significant or important biological resources, including native trees, exist on Areas B
or E. While the existing remnant landscaping would be eliminated as a result of project implementation (i.e., construction of the up to
270 dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of retail commercial on Area B and of 257 dwelling units on Area E), the landscape
concept plans prepared for the Projects would offset the loss of any existing non‐native landscape species. Similarly, the Projects would
be designed to accommodate landscaping that complements the proposed residential and retail/commercial developments, as well as the
existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources would occur, and no mitigation was necessary.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not within a plan area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. SEIR No. 339 found that no
impacts associated with an HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would occur, and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a plan area of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan. No impacts to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on biological resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to in
§15064.5?
£ £ £ R £
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to 15064.5?
£ £ £ R £
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? £ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any historical resources as defined by State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. The Platinum Triangle is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District and none of the structures within the
Platinum Triangle were identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan.
Areas B and E are currently undeveloped and do not support any existing structures; there are no above‐ground historic resources located
within the Project Sites, although two historic resources were identified within a one‐half mile radius of the A‐Town Metro area. Neither
the Project Sites nor the surrounding properties are identified as historic resources in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, no known
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 19
historic archaeological sites within the Platinum Triangle were identified. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts would occur, and
no mitigation was necessary.
Although Areas B and E have been previously developed with commercial uses, because it is possible that previously unidentified
archaeological artifacts could be present within the area, each future project considered for approval within the Platinum Triangle area,
by the City would be required to protect these resources as required under the mitigation measures. The discovery of buried resources
within the Project Site would not contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently,
impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. SEIR No. 339 determined that no defined historical resources
or structures exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Areas B and E. The Projects would not impact new locations with
potential historical resources or structures beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources would
occur and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any known archaeological resources, including Areas B and E.
The Project Sites are located within an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim and have been previously graded and developed/improved.
Any near‐surface archaeological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and/or destroyed by prior
development activities. SEIR No. 339 did not identify any impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, and no mitigation
was required. The Projects would not impact new locations with the potential to contain archaeological resources beyond those analyzed
for the PTMLUP. The Project Area has already been disturbed, and the potential for any subsurface cultural resources to be discovered
during construction is remote. Nonetheless, consistent with existing regulatory requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 14, Part 15064.5(f), and Public Resources Code Section 20182, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources (sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find would
immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending on the significance of the
find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional
work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Compliance with existing
regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on historical resources or structures would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339.
VI. ENERGY – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
£ £ R £ £
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? £ £ R £ £
Narrative Summary: Less-than-significant Impact.
SEIR No. 339 did not analyze Energy as the City Council certified the document before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the
new standard.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 20
Regulatory Framework
California State Building Regulation
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-
residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in
June 1977 and most recently revised in 2019 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design
of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2016 Standards for
new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 standards work to achieve zero
net energy for newly constructed residential buildings throughout California. The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in
new homes by more than 50 percent and require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family
buildings of three stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and
nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings
will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be seven percent more energy
efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less
energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first
green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part
of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019
CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2020.
Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40
percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB 350 requirement of 45 percent renewable
energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50 percent by 2026 and raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50 percent to 60
percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52
percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy
resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent
of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions
elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Local Regulation
The City’s Green Element outlines goals and policies conserve energy during the construction and operation of buildings. Key goals and
policies from the Green Element regarding new construction are:
• Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.
Policy 15.2(1): Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development (e.g.,
orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape
structures to shade buildings).
Policy 15.2(2): Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.
• Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.
Policy 17.1(1): Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural
ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.
During construction, the Projects would utilize main forms of available energy supply: electricity, natural gas, and oil. Construction of
the Projects in Areas B and E would result in energy consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used
for dust control, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities that require electrical power. Construction
activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. However, construction activities would also consume energy in the
form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off- road construction vehicles and equipment, round-trip construction worker
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 21
travel to the Project Sites (Areas B and E), and delivery and haul truck trips. Construction activities would comply with CARB’s “In-
Use Off- Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation”, which limits engine idling times to reduce harmful emissions and reduce wasteful
consumption of petroleum-based fuel. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand
during the Projects’ construction to the extent feasible, and Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Therefore, during construction no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Area B Project is a mixed-use residential project and Area E is a residential project. Both Site intensities and uses have been
considered in SEIR No. 339 and would be implemented pursuant the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. The Projects would comply with
State and Local regulations, in compliance with building codes, as they pertain to energy efficiency, therefore during operation, a less-
than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the Project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving?
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
£ £ £ R £
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? £ £ £ R £
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? £ £ £ R £
iv. Landslides? £ £ £ R £
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? £ £ £ R £
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 caused in whole or in part by the project’s
exacerbation of the existing environmental
conditions?
£ £ £ R £
d. Be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 22
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
£ £ £ R £
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel B, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 28, 2020 (Appendix A.1)
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel E, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 30, 2020 (Appendix A.2).
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Map does not delineate any known earthquake faults within the A‐Town Metro
property, Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with earthquake fault rupture would occur and no mitigation
was necessary. The Project Area is not within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, any known active faults do not
underlie the Project Area. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects proposed in Areas B and E
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that development pursuant to the PTMLUP might expose occupants to impacts from earthquakes, including strong
seismic ground shaking. The closest faults are the Puente Hills and San Joaquin Hills Thrust Faults located at distances of about 9.1 and
9.3 miles from the A‐Town Metro property, respectively. The closest active faults to the Project Sites with the potential for surface fault
rupture are the Whittier-Elsinore fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ), located approximately 8.9 and10.3 miles from the
Sites, respectively. Due to the large distances of active faults from the Sites, ground surface rupture is not a significant hazard. SEIR No.
339 concluded that impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking were less than significant with compliance with building
standards during final engineering of proposed projects within the Platinum Triangle. As with all Southern California, the Areas B and
E have the potential for strong seismic shaking. Design of the Projects would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the
California Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, seismic‐related impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The Projects proposed for Areas B and E would not result in new significant impacts
or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than
significant. There is no groundwater than goes to a depth greater than 11.5 feet below the surface within the Platinum Triangle area and
the probability for liquefaction impacts is low. Because impacts related to seismic‐related ground failure were less than significant, no
mitigation was required. The A‐Town Metro property, including Areas B and E, are not within an area with liquefaction potential in the
Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). In addition, groundwater was not
encountered in subsurface, from the investigation completed by Leighton and Associates, to the maximum depth explored of 51½ feet
below ground surface (bgs). According to groundwater information obtained through the California Geological Survey (CGS) and
presented in the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 1997), the historically shallowest groundwater depth
in the vicinity of the Project Sites is greater than 50 feet bgs. Based on prior explorations performed at the overall A-Town site in 2005,
groundwater was encountered at the Project Sites at a depth of approximately 82 feet bgs. Therefore, there is a low probability for
liquefaction impacts to occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Platinum Triangle, which includes the A‐Town Metro property, does not contain any major slopes on or in
the immediate vicinity and concluded that no impacts associated with landslides would occur and no mitigation was necessary. There
are no major hillsides or slopes within the Project Area. The Areas B and E are not within an area with earthquake‐ induced landslide
potential in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). Therefore, no impacts
related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that soils in the Platinum Triangle have a slight erosion potential. Adherence to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 23
(SWPPP) for erosion control, grading, and soil remediation during the grading and construction phase and a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) that also identifies measures to minimize the long‐term potential for erosion and loss of soil would reduce erosion impacts
to a less than significant level. Because impacts related to erosion were less than significant, no mitigation was required. Construction of
the Projects would adhere to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP that would be prepared for each of the
Projects would identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and pollutant transport during the construction phase.
Similarly, BMPs prescribed in the WQMP would also minimize potential erosion and pollutant transport following development of the
Areas B and E as proposed. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of construction BMPs would ensure
that impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would
not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the geologic composition of the Platinum Triangle is relatively stable because the soil units underlying the
Platinum Triangle are generally medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of
silt. By following the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in these site‐specific
geotechnical studies, the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated
with a geologic unit or unstable soil in SEIR No. 339 were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
Certified engineered fill of variable thickness overlying Quaternary-age young alluvial fan deposits currently underlie Areas B and E. .
The existing near-surface artificial fill soils encountered in exploratory borings for Area B range in thickness from nominal less than a
foot to 16½ feet below existing grade across the Project Site. The characterization of these soils are olive brown to dark brown, moist to
very moist, sandy silt, silty sand, clayey sand and sand with varying rock and manmade fragments. The existing near-surface artificial
fill soils encountered in one of the borings for Area E to an approximate depth of seven feet below ground surface (bgs) are understood
to have been placed under the observation and testing. These soils are characterized as gray to brown, dry to moist, silty sand and sandy
gravel, with varying rock and manmade fragments. The existing near-surface artificial fill soils encountered in exploratory borings
located outside of above-mentioned area are considered undocumented, and unsuitable for foundation support due to the uncontrolled
nature of these fill soils during placement. In addition, a large stockpile of soil up to approximately three to five feet in height exists in
the southern portion of the Area E. The undocumented artificial fill materials encountered in the borings range in thickness from
approximately five to 7½ feet bgs across the Project Site. These soils are characterized as brown, orange, brown, olive brown and reddish
brown, dry to moist, silty clay, clayey silt, silty sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with varying rock and concrete fragments. The
Quaternary age young alluvial fan deposits encountered beneath the fill materials for both Sites B and E in exploratory borings generally
consist of yellow brown to gray, brown, poorly to well graded moist, sand and silty sand with thin beds or laminations of silt and clay.
The soils for Areas B and E are both generally of low compressibility. Therefore, due to the nature of the soils and historic groundwater
table that is 50 feet or great below ground surface, liquefaction potential is considered to be low for both Areas B and E.
Furthermore, the Sites are devoid of steep slopes that would be subject to failure. Project design and construction would comply with the
requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Report. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For
this reason, the impacts associated with soil instability would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
As identified in SEIR No. 339, the near‐surface soils within the Platinum Triangle area, which includes Areas B and E, are generally
medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. The expansion potential for
these soils is considered low. However, for Area E, although variance in expansion potential of on-site fill (certified and undocumented)
soil does exist at the Project Site, expansive soils are not anticipated to impact the proposed construction. Additional testing should be
performed upon completion of Site grading and excavation to confirm the expansion potential. Additionally, any design or construction
for projects in the Platinum Triangle would adhere to the California Building Code and the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby decreasing
the risk associated with development on expansive soils. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with expansive soils would be
less than significant. Zones of medium dense clean sands are presented above the water table and as such seismic compaction may result
in settlement of about 0.5 to 1 inch at the Sites. Areas B and E have no known history of subsidence and are both generally level. Design
of the Projects would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and
the Uniform Building Code, as well as the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with
expansive soils would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts over those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that projects within the Platinum Triangle would not utilize septic tanks or alternative sewer systems. There
would be no impact for soils supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems and no mitigation was required. Areas B and
E and environs are currently served by a sanitary sewer system, which would continue to serve the Projects. The Projects would not add
septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems to the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts related to alternative wastewater
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 24
disposal systems would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
relative to geology and soils would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
£ £ £ R £
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would create a substantial increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing
conditions. The SEIR identified mitigation measures for solid waste: 2‐3, 10‐18, 10‐19, 10‐20; transportation and motor vehicles: 2‐5,
9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐12, 9‐14; energy efficiency: 2‐6, 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐24; and water conservation and efficiency: 10‐7, 10‐9, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐
14. These mitigation measures would reduce GHGs to the greatest extent feasible; however, the PTMLUP would still generate a
substantial increase in GHG emissions when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the GHG emission generated by the PTMLUP
were determined to be significant and unavoidable, requiring the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
address significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
Area B Project would consist of 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying 505
square feet of outdoor dining space. The proposed number of dwelling units and ground floor retail space are consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area B, which allows for a range of 165 to 281 dwelling
units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Along with the mixed-use building and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, a
co-working space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping, seating, fire pit area,
and two meeting rooms. Area E Project would consist of 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area
E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units, implementation of the Project
would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range
of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential building and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include a main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and
barbeque areas and two passive courtyards located off State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
Addendum No. 4, which includes revisions to Areas B and E, involves an overall decrease in the number of residential units and
retail/commercial floor area when compared to the approved Master Plan for the subject properties. Specifically, implementation of the
Addendum No. 4 would result in the development of a maximum of 1,746 condominiums and apartment units, which equates to a
reduction of 935 dwelling units based on the maximum of 2,681 dwelling units approved for the same A‐Town Metro area when the
PTMLUP was adopted. In addition, the Addendum No. 4 would allow up to 50,000 square feet of retail/commercial floor area, which
is 100,000 square feet less than the 150,000 square feet currently permitted,r under the approved Master Plan. The revised A-Town
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 25
Metro Master Plan, as described in Addendum No. 4, would generate a total of 13,746 trips per day compared to the 26,855 trips per day
generated by the approved A-Town Metro Master Site Plan in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, GHG emissions from vehicle trips would be
reduced by approximately 49 percent. In addition, the revised A-Town Metro Master Site Plan, which includes Areas B and E, would
generate less demand for utilities, including natural gas, electricity, and water. This decrease in both vehicular trips and demand for
utilities would result in a reduction in GHG emissions.
SEIR No. 339 determined that full implementation of the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Scoping Plan measures would reduce
emissions produced by the PTMLUP by 35 percent. Implementing these measures along with the statewide GHG reduction measures
for electricity producers, vehicles, fuel, and the cap‐and‐trade program would reduce the project emissions consistent with the GHG 30
percent reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in
the Scoping Plan. SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Implementation of the Projects would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions as a result of the reduction in overall residential
dwelling units and commercial development, compared to the approved A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan, which would further
reduce the total Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan emissions presented in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, the Projects would follow
the same regulations and plan measures for GHG reduction of at least 30 percent. Therefore, the Projects would not conflict with
applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
from GHG generation would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
£ £ £ R £
b. Create 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 £
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
£ £ £ R £
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would exacerbate the current environmental
conditions so as to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 26
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
£ £ £ R £
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
£ £ £ R £
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 identified that many businesses that operate within the Platinum Triangle use various hazardous materials. The PTMLUP
would continue to allow the use of hazardous materials in the operation of these businesses, as the Anaheim General Plan designates the
northern part of the Platinum Triangle for industrial land use. All businesses in the area must seek permits for hazardous materials and
maintain records of hazardous material storage, use, and disposal. Implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in a change in the
frequency of use of hazardous materials in the Platinum Triangle and would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation was
required.
Neither Area B Project, a mixed-use residential development, nor Area E Project, a residential development, would not contribute to
additional hazardous material usage during construction and operation. During construction, hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials typically associated with construction activities would be routinely transported and used in the Project Areas. These hazardous
materials could include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. The
transport, use, and handling of these materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with project construction. Equipment
maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the NPDES. In addition, trash enclosures are
required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given
the nature of the Projects in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials would
not result in undue risk to construction workers on the Sites or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous
materials on the Sites and in conjunction with the Projects would be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small
quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential and retail/commercial
properties, on‐going operation of Areas B and E for planned land uses within the Project Sites would not result in the storage and/or use
of hazardous materials that would rise to the level of creating a potentially significant adverse impact.
SEIR No. 339 identified that development within the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the environment through
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, existing federal and State regulations that govern hazardous material
and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact was determined to be less
than significant, and no mitigation was required. The area comprising the Project Sites previously supported commercial development.
However, the prior developments have been demolished and the Sites are currently undeveloped with the exception of some infrastructure
facilities (e.g., roads) intended to accommodate future development of the Project Areas. No potentially hazardous groundwater and/or
soils conditions are known to exist within the limits of the Project Areas that would result in the release of hazardous materials from the
Sites. Furthermore, Area B Project, a mixed-use residential development, and Area E Project, a residential development, would not
increase the usage of hazardous materials during operation and would therefore not increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Impacts related to the reasonably foreseeable upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that State and federal rules regulating the use and handling of hazardous materials would ensure that users
comply with permitting programs and restrict the use of unauthorized hazardous materials. The PTMLUP would not result in adverse
effects to the school population because new hazardous materials would not be introduced into the environment. SEIR No. 339
determined that hazardous waste impacts to schools were less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Specific to Areas B and
E, although the Paul Revere Elementary School at 140 W. Guinida Lane (northwest of the project site) and the Ponderosa Elementary
School at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue (southwest of the project site) are within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 27
area, neither of these schools is located within one‐quarter mile of the Project Areas. Additionally, the Anaheim City Unified School
District operates the Family Oasis at 131 W. Midway Drive and the Facilities and Operations Center at 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard.
These facilities, which are operated by the school district, are also beyond one‐quarter mile of the Project Sites. Nonetheless, as indicated
previously, use or handling of hazardous materials or substances within the Project Areas would comply with appropriate state and
federal rules and regulations through the requisite permitting process. No unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed.
Furthermore, with the reduction in the amount of future development as outlined in Addendum No. 4 for the A‐Town Metro component
of the Platinum Triangle, construction‐related pollutant emissions, including particulates and related contaminants, would also be
reduced. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 relied on the database record searches for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) No. 321 in 1999 and FEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that had potential to pose environmental hazards inside
the Platinum Triangle and nearby areas. Most of these properties were classified as “closed” action status and required no further
remediation, and some were undergoing remediation at the time of analysis. Any identified hazardous materials would be handled in a
manner consistent with State California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and
California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. In addition, property owners/developers would prepare a Phase I Site Assessment
for the proposed project site. Any properties with an “open” action status due to identified hazardous concerns would be required to
address the hazardous concern and obtain a “no‐further‐action” status from the applicable oversight agency. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that the development of the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, would not create a significant hazard to the environment
through the release of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces
Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, no impacts related to airport land use plans would occur and no mitigation
was required. There are two public airports in Orange County: John Wayne Airport (JWA), located approximately 8.25 miles south of
the site and Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA), which is located 7.5 miles to the north. Based on the location of the airports, the subject
properties are not located within a two‐mile radius of either airport and, therefore, is neither subject to nor affected by an adopted airport
land use plan. Therefore, no safety hazard impacts related to an airport would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified two heliports located at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center and the North Net Training Center.
In addition, the Anaheim Police Department (APD) conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of
Anaheim. The flight paths for all these sites are located away from the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E; therefore, SEIR No.
339 determined that the PTMLUP would present a less than significant impact to the heliports and no mitigation was required. The
Projects would not include any tall structures that could interfere with flight paths of the nearby heliports. Therefore, no impacts
associated with private airport safety hazards would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the City’s emergency preparedness plan complied with State law and interfaced with other cities and
counties within Southern California. The City also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi‐agency responses to disasters. SEIR No. 339 noted
that the PTMLUP would intensify development densities in the area. As outlined in Addendum No. 4 for the A‐Town Metro component
of the Platinum Triangle, Project implementation would result in a reduction in development densities within the Project Area.
Regardless, new development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles in addition to other measures prescribed in to
ensure adequate emergency response and operation. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, contains no undeveloped wildland areas within its
boundaries or in adjacent areas. The PTMLUP would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires. Because no impacts related to wildlands would occur, no mitigation was required. The areas within and adjacent to the
Project Areas are urban and developed. No wildland areas susceptible to fires exist in the Project Areas or adjacent areas. No impacts
related to wildland fires would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts
or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 28
regarding hazardous materials would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
£ £ £ R £
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
£ £ £ R £
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
£ £ £ R £
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site; £ £ £ R £
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
£ £ £ R £
iii. 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; or
£ £ £ R £
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? £ £ £ R £
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation? £ £ £ R £
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel B, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 28, 2020 (Appendix A.1)
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 29
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel E, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 30, 2020 (Appendix A.2)
• Preliminary Hydrology Analysis For A-Town Tract 17703, Lot 1 – Area B, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, Hunsaker &
Associates Irvine, Inc., September 21, 2021 (Appendix B.1)
• Preliminary Hydrology Analysis For A-Town Tract 17703, Lot 4 – Area E, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, Hunsaker &
Associates Irvine, Inc., June 3, 2021 (Appendix B.2)
• Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, A-Town – Development Area “B”, Tract No. 17703, Lot 1, Permit No.
OTH2021-01348, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., November 1, 2021 (Appendix C.1)
• Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, A-Town – Development Area “E”, Tract No. 17703, Lot $, Permit No.
OTH2021-01350, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Revised November 1, 2021 (Appendix C.2)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface. During grading and
construction activities, there would be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small quantities of pollutants into the
stormwater runoff. However, SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP would comply with current water quality regulations, including the
City Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City
of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), as required by Mitigation
Measure 3‐2. This would include preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, and a WQMP and implementation of
construction and operational BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
SEIR No. 339 found that the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, would result in
additional demands on groundwater supplies. To meet projected water demand, the City would upgrade the initial production rate of a
previously proposed new water well in the Platinum Triangle and would drill an additional new well at a location to be determined. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that construction of an additional groundwater well in Anaheim would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
due to the location of the new water well in relation to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Basin. SEIR No. 339
concluded that impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory
requirements and standard conditions of approval. In addition, an updated 2009 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by
Psomas that assessed the availability of domestic water since the approval of the PTMLUP. Since preparation of the 2009 WSA, the
OCWD has completed the expansion of its Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) from 75 to 100 million gallons per day. This
expansion increases the reliability of the Orange County Basin of which Anaheim has historically obtained approximately 70 percent of
its water supply. Furthermore, groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 50 feet below existing surface. Based on soils investigation
conducted for the overall A-Town improvements, which includes Areas B and E, groundwater is estimated at depths greater than 65’
below ground surface. The Projects would not be excavating to depths greater than 50 feet below existing surface and would not interfere
with groundwater. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially increase the amount of
impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the same as under existing conditions. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)
would ensure that property owners/developers would properly convey and discharge runoff. Furthermore, no stream or river exists within
the limits of the A‐Town Metro Master Plan, including Areas B and E. As previously indicated, the existing Sites had been significantly
altered in order to support commercial development that previously existed. Although project implementation would result in the
conversion of the properties from undeveloped Sites to a mixed‐use development on Area B and a residential development on Area E
and would result in alterations that would affect existing drainage conditions, it is anticipated that the existing surface drainage conditions
and characteristics would generally be maintained. Although additional grading and landform alteration necessary to prepare the Sites
for development could result in some erosion during that phase of construction, BMPs would be implemented pursuant to a SWPPP in
order to prevent downstream transport of sediments resulting from site grading. BMPs are required pursuant to the NPDES and also
prescribed by the City and reflected in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, Grading Plans prepared for proposed development must include an
approved drainage and erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. Additionally,
development sites that encompass an area of 1.0 acre or greater would be subject to compliance with the NPDES program’s General
Construction Permit requirements and consequently the development and implementation of an SWPPP as prescribed by the City of
Anaheim. In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with the City’s grading and excavation ordinance, which would
ensure minimal topsoil loss from potential erosion. As stipulated in that document, the property owner/developer has prepared a WQMP
to submit to the RWQCB, in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 30
Management Plan (refer to Appendix C). The SWPPP, in conjunction with the WQMP, describes the structural and nonstructural BMPs
that would be implemented during construction (short‐term) within the Project Areas as well as BMPs for long‐term operation of the
Project Areas. Long‐term measures include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage,
designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. Implementation of
the BMPs ensure that potential erosion and siltation would not be transported downstream and, therefore, would not adversely affect
downstream drainage features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because SEIR No. 339 determined that these impacts
were less than significant, no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially increase the amount of
impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the same as under existing conditions. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and the OCFCD would ensure that property
owners/developers properly convey and discharge runoff as appropriate. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 determined that impacts would be
less than significant. It should be noted that the A‐Town Metro property, which includes Areas B and E, has been extensively altered as
a result of past grading and development that occurred on the Sites. No natural drainage course exists due to the extent of alteration to
the Sites and surrounding area within the drainage area. In the pre‐project condition, runoff from the graded pad areas is contained
within each paid and allowed to infiltrate into underlying soils. Runoff from Area B is retained on-site and any overflows discharging to
the existing storm drain system in Westside Drive and Market Street and conveyed westerly to the existing storm drain facility in Lewis
Street (County Facility No. C05P21). Runoff from Area E is retained on-site, with any overflows discharging to the existing storm drain
system in Metro Drive, then connect to Katella Avenue Runoff from both Areas B and E then flow to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg
Channel (County Facility No. C05) and Haster Retarding Basin (County Facility No. C05B02). Further downstream receiving waters
include Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay. The conditions do not change the conclusion of SIER No. 339
regarding runoff at the Project Sites.
As discussed in the WQMPs for each Project Area (B and E) (refer to Appendix C), each Project would be responsible for incorporating
Low Impact Development (LID) principles and BMPs into design features and evaluating LID measures in the following treatment
hierarchy: infiltration, evapo‐transpiration, harvest/reuse and bio‐treatment. In the proposed condition, runoff conveyance from Area B
would occur in a proposed 18” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in a northerly direction to the existing storm drain facility in Katella
Avenue. Runoff produced from the southern portion of Area E would drain toward the west and confluence with Area F, and then
discharge into the existing the 18” RCP located in Park Street. The remainder of Area E, the northern portion, would drain toward the
north and discharge into the existing 24” RCP located in Metro Drive. As discussed in more detail below, first flush flows produced
from the Areas B and E would be collected in the proposed inlets throughout the Sites, then diverted in the proposed diversion structures
to drain to proposed Modular Wetland Systems. Treated flows are then stored in the proposed storage vaults. Areas B and E LID measures
propose to retain water quality flows (non-storm water flows and the Design Capture Volume) on-site for each of the Project Sites
Drainage Management Areas (DMA) (refer to Appendix C for details). To meet the trash capture requirements of the Ocean Plan, each
of Area B and E’s on-site catch basins would be equipped with automatic retractable screens and connection pipe screens constructed of
corrosion resistant materials and meeting the “Full Capture” design criteria. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General Construction
Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects are less than significant. Compliance with the State General Construction
Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded that development would not create or
contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of pollutant runoff. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
was required. Furthermore, pursuant to the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 09, Section 030.010, the Projects proposed
for Areas B and E are subject to the requirements of New Development and Significant Redevelopment projects to control urban runoff,
in accordance with County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). As indicated above, Project implementation would
not result in a significant increase in either the volume or velocity of surface water resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces.
The Projects’ drainage patterns design would maximize opportunities to convey stormwater to areas that would maximize the
effectiveness of the LID BMPs prescribed in the WQMP. It is important to note that the new NPDES permits impose more stringent
BMPs. As a result, water quality impacts would be expected to be much less that what was previously envisioned in the SEIR No. 339.
Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General Construction
Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects would be less than significant. Compliance with the State General
Construction Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded that development would not
create or contribute runoff water that would substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Although conversion of the Sites as proposed would not result in any unique or
unusual water quality impacts, site preparation, grading and construction could result in some erosion potential and the potential for a
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 31
discharge of silt and other pollutants associated with the proposed development into the surface waters. However, as indicated above, it
would be necessary to implement a SWPPP, WQMP and related BMPs, to ensure that water quality impacts that may occur during
grading and construction are minimized. Implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP would avoid potentially significant
water quality impacts during the construction phase of Areas B and E. As a result, project‐related construction impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and remain within the analysis and conclusion of SEIR No. 339. In addition, non‐structural and structural
BMPs included in the WQMP would ensure that potential long‐term, post‐development water quality impacts are also avoided or reduced
to a less than significant level and would remain within the analysis and conclusion of SEIR No 339. Therefore, the Projects would not
result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone
unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts
related to the placement of housing within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was
required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. Because
the Project Area is not located within the 100‐year flood zone and protected by a levee, the Project Sites are not subject to flooding
associated with a 100‐year storm and future residential development would not be subject to a significant flood hazard. The existing
levee that provides flood protection in the area is maintained by the OCFCD and is regularly inspected to ensure that failure of the levee
does not occur. Therefore, impacts related to the placement of structures within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. Although
the Project Area, including Areas B and E, is protected from flooding by a levee as indicated above, Project implementation would not
expose either people or structures to flood hazards as a result of the failure of either a dam or levee. The existing levee that provides
flood protection in the area is maintained by the OCFCD and is regularly inspected to ensure that failure of the levee does not occur.
Nonetheless, in the event of a failure that may result in flooding within the Project Area, the City would implement emergency operation
procedures necessary to protect the public health and welfare. Therefore, impacts related to flooding were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that the topography within the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is flat and not subject to mudflow.
According to the City’s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are in the immediate vicinity of the Sites; therefore, no impacts from
seiches are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. The City of Anaheim is located well inland, away from the Orange County
coastline. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the Project Sites and vicinity.
Similarly, the Sites are essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic
activity or other instability to cause mud. Therefore, no impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur,
and no mitigation was required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
related to hydrology and water quality would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? £ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 32
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to SEIR No. 339, the PTMLUP would increase the adopted development intensities and expand the Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone, which would not physically divide an established community by creating physical or perceived barriers to movement
within a community. Across from the Area B, to north along Katella Avenue, are multi-family residential uses. To the east of the Area
B is Market Street and the future A-Town Development Area C and Aloe Greens, an A-Town public park. To the south of the Area B
is Meridian Street and the future A-Town Development Area H, comprised of multi-family residential uses, and Aloe Promenade, an A-
Town linear park, which is currently under construction. To the west of the Area B is Westside Drive and A-Town Development Area
A, comprised of multi-family residential uses. To the north of the Area E is a gas station with a convenience market. To the east of the
Area E is State College Boulevard and multi-family residential uses. To the south of the Area E is a commercial complex, affiliated
with Southern California Gas Company. To the west of the Area E is South Chris Lane and A-Town Development Area D and Area F,
both comprised of multi-family residential uses. Although the use of the Areas B and E would change from their present undeveloped
condition, Project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community because the
development located adjacent to the Sites are comprised of a variety of land uses. The future development of Areas B and E would be
compatible with the adjacent and nearby land uses. Furthermore, the Areas B and E do not contain any features or elements (e.g.,
roadways, channels, incompatible development, etc.) that would physically divide the existing residential neighborhoods in the Project
vicinity. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to division of an established community would occur and no
mitigation was required.
Area B would include development of 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying
505 square feet of outdoor dining space. The proposed number of dwelling units and ground floor retail space are consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area B, which allows for a range of 165 to 281 dwelling
units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Area E would include development of 257 dwelling units. The A-
Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed
development of 257 units, implementation of the Area E Project would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development
areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan.
Although the Area E development requires a density transfer of 40 units, as cited above, future development proposed within the Project
Sites would be consistent with all the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, Land Use, Economic Development, and
Community Design Elements as reflected in Table 5.4‐1 in SEIR No. 339. The Projects would be compatible with surrounding land
uses and would comply with applicable design guidelines. Furthermore, any potential impacts previously identified in SEIR No. 339
would be avoided or lessened through the implementation of the mitigation measures applicable to the A‐Town Metro project prescribed
in SEIR No. 339. Finally, development within the A‐Town Metro Master Plan area would provide housing and employment
opportunities within the City, consistent with the long‐range goals and objectives. As a result, Projects would continue to achieve the
goals, objectives, and policies of the relevant adopted plans and programs of the Anaheim General Plan.
SEIR No. 339 also concluded that the PTMLUP would be inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and
Facilities Element Goal 8.1 because high‐rise residential towers proposed as part of the A‐Town Metro Project could potentially interview
with an existing Southern California Gas Company (SCG) microwave tower. No feasible mitigation was available to minimize the
potential conflict with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function; therefore, impacts were concluded to be significant and
unavoidable. This potential impact required the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant
and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. Although Addendum
No. 4 includes a provision that would limit the maximum building height within the A‐Town Metro Master Plan area to 100 feet, due to
the location, elevation, and height of the SCG microwave tower, the reduction in the maximum building height proposed would not
lessen or eliminate that significant unavoidable adverse impact. Area B development would have a maximum building height of 75’10”
and Area E development would have a maximum building height of 65’6”. Thus, the inconsistency (and significant unavoidable impact)
previously cited in SEIR No. 339 would not change as a result of the Projects. As previously concluded in SEIR No. 339, this conflict
would remain significant and unavoidable; however, it is neither a new impact nor would it result in a more severe impact than previously
identified.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 33
In addition to the consistency determinations related to the Anaheim General Plan, the Projects would also be consistent with other
applicable regional plans and programs, including Compass/Growth visioning principles identified in SCAG’s Compass Blueprint 2%
Strategy, and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would not affect an HCP or an NCCP because the Platinum Triangle is not a part of
either of these plans. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts to HCPs or NCCPs would occur, and no mitigation was
required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
£ £ £ R £
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no mineral resources were in the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E. No loss of mineral resources
would occur, and no mitigation was required. The City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) does not identify
the Project Area as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ‐2). The Projects would
not result in impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the City of Anaheim General Plan does not identify the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, as a
Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no loss of mineral resources would occur, and no
mitigation was required. The Project Area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) as
a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within MRZ‐2. Therefore, the Projects would not result in impacts to locally
important mineral resource recovery sites and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 34
concerning loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
XIII. NOISE – Would the Project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
£ £ £ R £
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? £ £ £ R £
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Final Acoustical Report, A-Town Metro Master Land Use Plan Project – Parcel B, City of Anaheim, California, LSA, March
2021 (Appendix D.1)
• Final Acoustical Report, A-Town Metro Master Land Use Plan Project – Parcel E, City of Anaheim, California, LSA, March
2021 (Appendix D.2)
The Project Sites and their vicinities are located within an urban area that is developed with a variety of land uses, including single‐ and
multiple‐family residential, commercial, institutional, sports, transportation‐related, and other land uses. The primary existing ambient
noise sources in the Project Area are transportation facilities. Traffic on East Katella Avenue, Interstate-5 (I-5), and other adjacent
roadways is a steady source of ambient noise. Construction noise in the Project vicinities was also observed. Lastly, the Project Sites are
located between two event and entertainment centers that have regular firework shows during typical, non-pandemic conditions.
Disneyland, located northwest of the Project Sites, has nightly firework shows around 9:30 p.m. Angel Stadium has a firework show at
the end of Saturday night baseball games which occur March through September. It is also possible that other events at Angel Stadium
throughout the year may have firework shows, but those are not regularly scheduled. The loudest source of noise from the Saturday night
firework shows at Angel Stadium, fireworks associated with Disneyland would also be audible at the Project Sites.
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP had potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of City of Anaheim General Plan
and Noise Ordinance standards. The noise would primarily be derived from vehicular traffic, especially on Gene Autry Way from I‐5 to
State College Boulevard and on State College Boulevard from Orange Avenue to Gene Autry Drive. In addition, SEIR No. 339 found
that noise‐sensitive residential uses may be exposed to mobile and stationary‐source noise levels exceeding State and/or City standards.
Further, building facades exposed to greater than 69 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) would need to be improved architecturally to achieve a
45 dBA community noise equivalent interior noise level limit. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐2, 5‐3, 5‐4, 5‐5, 5‐7,
5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce noise impacts by requiring noise reduction improvements for residences and disclosure of abnormal noise
levels prior to approval of project construction, and restrictions on hours of operations for construction activities, as well as construction
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 35
equipment maintenance requirements. Even with these measures, the noise impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable,
and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
The Projects would require construction activities which would create temporarily increased noise levels for the surrounding areas. Noise
impacts during construction of the Projects were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a programmatic level. According to the City’s
Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction noise from the City noise standards at the property line when construction
occurs during these hours, construction noise would have the potential to generate noise levels well above the existing ambient noise
levels. The property owner/developer would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to
increased noise levels by requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at certain times of the day and with proper operating
procedures.
The Projects do not include an expansion of the roadway improvements previously identified in SEIR No. 339. Area B development
would include development 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying 505 square
feet of outdoor dining space with a residential density of 82 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the
A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements would
include landscape walkways, a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, a co-working
space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping, seating, fire pit area, and two meeting
rooms. Area E development would include 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area E allows for
a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units, implementation of the Project would require
a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range of dwelling
units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area
improvements would include main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and
two passive courtyards located off State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based on the proposed modified land use plan would result in a decrease
in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, although Project implementation would result in a reduction in project‐
related traffic, both on a daily and peak hour basis, it is anticipated that potential noise impacts would be similar, albeit slightly reduced,
as the noise level projections along the roadway segments identified previously. Therefore, the Projects are not expected to generate
additional traffic noise beyond what was assumed in SEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measure 5‐1 in SEIR No. 339 would reduce impacts
associated with operational noise produced by the Projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10,
any improvements associated with the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts beyond
those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Because residential development is proposed along the Katella Avenue corridor in the northern limits
of the property as well as along Gene Autry Way, to the south, these sensitive land uses would be subject to virtually the same noise level
exposure as identified and described in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, other sensitive land uses along those same roadway segments would
also be adversely affected by the high roadway noise levels. Because the traffic generated by the Projects would not result in an increase
in noise levels but rather result in a potential decrease, the Projects as currently proposed would not result in any new significant impacts;
the potential impacts identified and described in SEIR No. 339 would not change significantly.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would potentially create excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The
vibration and noise would be created by construction activities in the vicinity of vibration‐sensitive land uses and could also impact any
housing located near the Amtrak/Metrolink Orange County Line. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measure 5‐5 to reduce groundborne
noise and vibration impacts from pile driving and Mitigation Measure 5‐6 to reduce the impacts created by groundborne vibration and
noise to vibration‐sensitive land uses in close proximity to the Orange County Line. However, even with these mitigation measures, the
impacts remained significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No.
339 was certified.
Groundborne vibration would be generated by construction equipment during construction activities for the Projects, primarily during
the demolition, grading, and foundation phases of such development within the Areas B and E. Unless there are extremely large generators
of vibration, such as pile drivers, or receptors in close proximity to construction equipment, vibration is generally only perceptible at
structures when vibration rattles windows, picture frames, and other objects. The maximum levels of vibration that would be experienced
at vibration‐sensitive structures located 25 feet from the construction equipment would vary from about 60 VdB to over 110 VdB.
Adequate mitigation measures were prescribed to ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Project
implementation would not result in any new potentially significant noise impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would result in a substantial, permanent increase in the ambient traffic noise levels in the
vicinity of existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 established mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on ambient noise
levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 36
when SEIR No. 339 was certified. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified
land use plan, would result in a decrease in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, it would be anticipated that
some noise levels projected within the Project Area, including Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, would be reduced to some
degree based on the reduction in traffic. However, the noise levels throughout the Project Area would not be significantly reduced and
the potentially significant adverse noise impacts would remain despite the reduction in traffic associated with the Projects. Therefore,
where applicable, the Projects would be subject to the same mitigation measures identified in SEIR No. 339. Project implementation
would not result in any new potentially significant impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels created by construction near
existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce the temporary impacts
on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified. Construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels in the
vicinity of Areas B and E. Noise impacts during construction of the Projects were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a
programmatic level. There are existing residences west and north of Area B which could experience a temporary construction noise
nuisance. A construction noise mitigation plan must be developed and implemented for activity occurring within 200 feet of these
residences. The use of smaller equipment and notification of potentially affected residents of the duration of adjacent heavy equipment
operations can reduce construction noise. In order to reduce short‐term construction‐related noise impacts, several mitigation measures
were prescribed in SEIR No. 339, including MM 5‐7 through MM 5‐10. MM 5‐7 requires that the developer ensure that noise levels at
the property boundary not exceed 60 dBA between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., limit the hours of use of equipment that generates excessive
noise levels to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and properly maintain and employ muffler systems on all construction equipment. The other
measures include proper maintenance and tuning of all construction equipment (MM 5‐8), location of all stationary noise sources (e.g.,
generators, compressors, etc.) away from noise‐sensitive receptors (MM 5‐9), and restricting material delivery, soil haul trucks, and
equipment servicing to the hours set forth in Section 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (MM 5‐10). As concluded in SEIR No. 339,
construction‐related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation measures;
however, the proposed reduction in residential and commercial development would not result in any new or more severe construction‐
related noise impact than those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, are not located in an area with an airport land use plan
for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. The people living in the Platinum Triangle would
not be exposed to excessive noise levels from air operations. SEIR No. 339 determined that no impacts related to airport land use plans
would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not located in a zone that is regulated by an airport land use plan. The
Projects would not create additional exposure of people to excessive air traffic noise. No impacts related to airport noise would occur
and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no private airstrips are located within the City; however, two heliports are located near the Platinum
Triangle, including Areas B and E. In addition, APD conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of
Anaheim. Although implementation of the Projects would place more people in the vicinity of heliport noise, the Projects would not
contribute to an increase in noise from these sources. SEIR No. 339 determined that the impact would be less than significant, and no
mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning noise impacts would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339. No mitigation is applicable.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 37
a. Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
£ £ £ R £
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would directly induce population growth by allowing additional residential development
and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional nonresidential development in the Platinum Triangle. Area B
development would include development 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with
accompanying 505 square feet of outdoor dining space with a residential density of 82 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include landscape walkways, a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck
area with a clubroom, a co-working space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping,
seating, fire pit area, and two meeting rooms. Area E development would include 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site
Plan for Development Area E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units,
implementation of the Project would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or
would not use the maximum range of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential
buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements would include main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck,
lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and two passive courtyards located off of State College Boulevard with seating and
picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
Overall, as explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based on the proposed modified land use plan, implementation
of the Projects would result in a reduction in the total number of dwelling units within the A‐Town Metro property when compared to
the impact analysis of the SEIR No. 339. The buildout of A‐Town Metro under Addendum No. 4 would allow for a maximum, of 1,746
apartments and condominiums, compared to 2,681 high density residential dwelling units currently approved for the same area. The
reduction of 935 dwelling units would reduce the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Platinum Triangle to 17,974 dwelling
units. As a result, the total population estimated for the Platinum Triangle would be reduced to 26,961 residents, compared to 28,364
estimated for the 18,909 approved dwelling units. In addition, the potential employment generated within the A‐Town Metro area would
also be reduced based on the reduction of 100,000 square feet of retail/commercial development, resulting in a maximum of 50,000
square feet for A‐Town Metro. The total number of jobs estimated for the Platinum Triangle would also be reduced from 300 to 100 as
a result of the reduction in the retail/commercial floor area currently proposed. Further, SEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the
Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, would result in a jobs/housing ratio more balanced when compared to the existing
conditions in the area. No impacts were identified, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the PTMLUP would not displace any units of housing. Therefore, SEIR No. 339
determined that no impacts related to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Sites do not support
housing at the present time. Project implementation includes the conversion of existing vacant properties to a high-density mixed-use
development on Area B and a high-density residential development for Area E, albeit at lower development intensities than previously
approved for A‐Town Metro. Implementation of the Projects would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling
units and would not require the provision of any replacement housing. Therefore, no new significant impacts to the City’s existing
housing inventory would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not displace any people and no construction of replacement housing would be
required. As indicated above, Project implementation would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling units, and
therefore, would not displace any residents in the City of Anaheim. Although the Projects would result in a reduction in the number of
dwelling units previously approved by the City for the A‐Town Metro property, the Projects do include the development of up to 527
apartments that would be added to the City’s inventory of housing, which would not only increase the City’s housing stock. Therefore,
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to displacement of people would occur and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 38
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning loss of existing housing resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that
identified in SEIR No. 339.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objective for any of the following public
services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire Protection? £ £ £ R £
b. Police Protection? £ £ £ R £
c. Schools? £ £ £ R £
d. Parks? £ £ £ R £
e. Other Public Facilities? £ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Fire Protection: SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the
PTMLUP would delay Anaheim Fire District’s (AFD) response time for first engine response, increase demand for other services of the
AFD, and require additional fire facilities. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, no fire stations currently exist within the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Area, however, the two nearest fire stations are located approximately one‐half mile from the Project Area.
Stadium Station #7 is located at 2222 East Ball Road, and Resort Station #3 is located at 1717 South Clementine. AFD has a plan to
construct three new fire stations to serve the Project Area. The first station, the Battalion Headquarters Station would be located along
Santa Cruz Street north of Orangewood Avenue, the second station would be in the north central area of the Platinum Triangle, and the
third station would be located at an undetermined location. Additional property taxes would be collected from the new residential projects
in the Platinum Triangle, including the developments on Areas B and E, and these would be used to cover the additional staffing needs.
In addition, the Public Safety Impact Fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects within
the Platinum Triangle, which would provide funds for the construction of new fire facilities. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated
with fire protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐1 and 7‐2, which require
installation of fire sprinklers on new buildings and payment of impact fees as identified in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC), Chapter
17.36.
Police Protection: SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the
PTMLUP would require an increase in police facilities and staffing by APD. The two nearest police facilities are Main Station, located
3.5 miles west of the Platinum Triangle at 425 South Harbor Boulevard and South Station, located 3.6 miles west of the Platinum Triangle
at 1520 Disneyland Drive. SEIR No. 339 determined that a Public Safety Impact Fee, which would be applicable to the Projects, would
assist with the generation of funds for facilities and equipment for police activities. Additionally, the increase in property taxes collected
from the new developments, including Areas B and E, would be expected to cover staffing needs for the law enforcement. SEIR No. 339
found impacts associated with police protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐3,
7‐4, 7‐5, 7‐6, and 7‐7, which require APD to review plans for new developments and for property owners/developers to pay associated
police fees.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 39
Schools: SEIR No. 339 concluded that residential development within the Platinum Triangle would create approximately 4,018
additional elementary and middle school students in the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and approximately 1,549 additional high
school students in the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Areas B and E would be within the attendance boundaries of
Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, a demographic
consultant for the ACSD conducted a survey of current student generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that are
similar to the type of residential development that would occur in the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, and found the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate fewer students than the number of students expected to be generated from the
traditional housing type. Additionally, the serving elementary school is located outside the boundaries of the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Area; therefore, Project implementation would create a need for additional buses and supporting services. However,
the SEIR No. 339 found that developer payment of school fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD would reduce potential school‐ related
impacts to a less than significant level. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with schools to be less than significant with the
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 7‐8 and 7‐9, which require coordination with schools and payment of school fees.
Parks: SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for
parks and other recreational facilities. As mentioned above, Area B development would be comprised of 270 dwelling units and Area E
development would be comprised of 257 dwelling units. Common areas are proposed for Area B, along with a first-floor fitness center
and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck
area with landscaping, seating, and fire pit area. The third-floor open-to-sky courtyard would be in the center of the building and an
additional open-to-sky courtyard would be located on the seventh floor. Additionally, common areas are proposed for Area E, along with
landscaped walkways, main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and two
passive courtyards located from State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens. Though both Projects
would provide open space and recreational facilities at both Sites, it is expected that residents would use local parks. Therefore,
implementation of the Projects would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater maintenance for park facilities. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC, establishing recreational space requirements for the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure that adequate recreational space would be provided to support the population
growth in the Platinum Triangle area, including Areas B and E. With compliance with this regulation and incorporation of SEIR No. 339
Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts for the
development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities: SEIR No. 339 identified that the PTMLUP could potentially affect the library system in the local area. Increased
population would increase demand for these facilities and the services they provide. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, the nearest library
facility to the Project Area is the Sunkist Branch Library located at 901 South Sunkist Avenue. A joint use library facility with the
Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) is located at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue. The Project Area is also served by
virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library located at 500 West Broadway. Population growth affects
online resources because the basis for licensing fees for these databases, eBooks, and other digital resources are generally the population
of the library’s service area. With additional residents to serve, the Proposed Project would reduce the overall availability per capita of
books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing
agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system. Mitigation Measure
7‐10 requires the payment of developer fees to assist with providing additional materials and services at the libraries servicing the
population within the Platinum Triangle, which would include Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with library
facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7‐10.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning public services would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XVI. RECREATION – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 40
No New
Impact
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
£ £ £ R £
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for parks
and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater maintenance efforts. However,
as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan would result in the future development of a maximum of
1,746 dwelling units, which is approximately 35 percent fewer units than the original A‐Town Metro land use plan. In addition, the A‐
Town Metro land use plan has been redesigned to relocate and reconfigure the parks/recreational facilities that were approved for the
same area. The approved land use plan for the A‐Town Metro area includes two parks encompassing 3.0 acres and 0.5 acre. With the
reduction in residential density with the A‐Town Metro land use plan, these parks would be replaced and reconfigured with a 1.2‐acre
public park and a 0.6‐acre public linear park extending from Meridian Street as an extension of Market Street south to Gene Autry Way.
The 1.8 acres of public parks included in the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan complies with the mini‐park requirement to provide
44 square feet of parkland for each dwelling unit. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational space in an
amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, with compliance with this regulation along with
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and construction of park
areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for parks
and other recreational facilities. However, as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan would result in the
development of 1,746 residential dwelling units, which is 935 fewer units than the original A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan. The
reduction in the number of dwelling units, would create a reduced demand for recreation amenities in the City. Furthermore, such
facilities included in the revised A‐Town Metro Plan are consistent with those previously approved for the area and would not, therefore,
result in the expansion of recreational facilities that could adversely affect the environment. The SEIR No. 339 concluded that
compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC, establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With
compliance with this regulation along with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require
the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be
less than significant.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning recreational facilities would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339. No mitigation measures from SEIR No. 339 are applicable.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 41
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
£ £ £ R £
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? £ £ £ R £
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
£ £ £ R £
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? £ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Transportation Analysis for A-Town Parcel B, LSA, July 16, 2021 (Appendix E.1)
• Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for A-Town Parcel B, LSA, July 13, 2021 (Appendix E.2)
• Transportation Analysis for A-Town Parcel E, LSA, July 16, 2021 (Appendix E.3)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the PTMLUP. The California Natural
Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of
vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. The adopted guidelines, evaluates
transportation impacts based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their
current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. In late 2019, State courts stated that under
section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for
roadway capacity projects. SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would conflict with the LOS for the roadway system
within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 required Mitigation Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12, 9‐
13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to minimize the
LOS impacts on roadway systems in the Platinum Triangle. Even with the incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts to the
roadway system remained significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council
when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the VMT Thresholds of Significance for purpose of analyzing transportation
impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for CEQA Analysis. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, certain
projects that meet specific screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to CEQA Section 15064.3
absent substantial evidence to the contrary.1 There are three project-screening types that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen
projects from project-level assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types below to qualify for screening. These
screening types are summarized below:
Type 1: Transit Priority Area Screening. A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or
an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) may have a less than significant
VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project has a total floor area
ratio of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction,
Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of
moderate- or high-income residential units.
Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening. A low VMT-generating area is an area that has a VMT per service population metric that is 15%
below the County average. Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may have a less than significant
impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employment-related and mixed-use projects within a low VMT-generating area
1 City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis,
June 2020.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 42
may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the project can reasonably be expected to generate a VMT per service
population metric similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.
Type 3: Project Type Screening. Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Projects that are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to
their local serving nature include local-serving K-12 schools, neighborhood and community parks, day care centers, certain local-serving
retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses, community and religious assembly
uses, public services, local-serving community colleges, affordable or supportive housing, convalescent and rest homes, senior housing,
and projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips.
Area B: Although not stated in the City’s Guidelines, the State’s Technical Advisory states that “lead agencies can evaluate each
component of a mixed‐use project independently.” This assessment of the Area B Project’s potential impacts to VMT evaluates the retail
and residential components independently.
Retail: The Area B Project is constructing 21,640 square feet of retail (with an additional 505 square feet outdoor dining area). The single
largest component is a market, but additional space could be provided for retail, restaurant, or personal service businesses. All would be
local serving. Because the retail component of the Area B Project is less than 50,000 square feet and local serving, the retail component
of the Project qualifies for Type 3 screening as defined in the City’s Guidelines.
Residential: Area B is located in a TPA and qualifies for Type 1 screening. ARTIC is the train station for the Amtrak national train
service and Metrolink commuter rail and also serves as a bus transfer station and a link to the Santa Ana River Trail off‐street bike path.
While ARTIC is located more than 0.5 mile from the Project Site, other transit options connect the Project Site to this major transit stop.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates fixed route bus service in Orange County, including Anaheim. Within
the vicinity of the Project Site, two OCTA routes qualify as high‐quality transit corridors. Route 50 operates primarily along Katella
Avenue and has a stop at ARTIC, while Route 57 operates primarily along State College Boulevard. Both routes appear in the City
Guidelines’ illustration of TPAs in Anaheim. It should be noted that a pedestrian entrance to the residential component of the Project
would be immediately adjacent to a Route 50 bus stop. Therefore, the residential component of the Project would be screened from
further analysis unless conditions are present that would make a presumption of less than significant impact inappropriate.
Because the retail portion of the Area B Project qualifies for Type 3 screening and the residential portion qualifies for Type 1 screening
(and meets the criteria for a less than significant VMT impact under the City’s Guidelines), the Area B Project would result in a less than
significant impact, and a project‐level VMT quantified analysis is not required under the City’s Guidelines.
Area E: Area E is located in a TPA. ARTIC is the train station for the Amtrak national train service and Metrolink commuter rail and
also serves as a bus transfer station and a link to the Santa Ana River Trail off‐street bike path. While ARTIC is located more than 0.5
mile from the project site, other transit options connect the project site to this major transit stop. The OCTA operates fixed route bus
service in Orange County, including Anaheim. Within the vicinity of the project site, two OCTA routes qualify as high‐quality transit
corridors. Route 50 operates primarily along Katella Avenue and has a stop at ARTIC, while Route 57 operates primarily along State
College Boulevard. Both routes appear in the City Guidelines’ illustration of TPAs in Anaheim. It should be noted that a pedestrian
entrance to the Project would be immediately adjacent to a Route 57 bus stop.
Because Area E is within a transit priority area and meets the Type 1 screening criteria for a less than significant VMT impact under the
City’s Guidelines, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, and a project‐level VMT quantified analysis is not required
under the City’s Guidelines.
While the revised CEQA Guidelines prohibit a Lead Agency from using vehicle delay and LOS to evaluate a Project’s transportation
impact, the following analysis provides the development of Area B and E’s consistency with these policies, as well as the City of Anaheim
Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for informational purposes.
The Project for Area B is a mixed-use building consisting of 270 dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor
retail space with accompanying 505 square feet of outdoor dining space. The Trip Generation Memo conducted by LSA determined that
the Project would generate approximately 267 net new daily trips, with approximately 111 net new trips during the AM peak hour and
approximately 156 net new trips during the PM peak hour. Addendum No. 4 analyzed the impacts to 15 intersections and five roadway
segments in the vicinity of A-Town Metro Master Site Plan, and the proposed development was found to have a less than significant
impact on all the facilities except for the intersection of Lewis Street/Katella Avenue. Therefore, the traffic analysis concluded that one
of the planned roadway improvements included in the Platinum Triangle Improvement Plan (the addition of a fourth westbound through
lane) would need to be implemented prior to occupancy of Development Area B. Development of Area B, however, would have a less
than significant impact on intersection operation of Lewis Street/Katella Avenue. The Area B Project would still be responsible for
citywide Transportation Impact and Improvement fees and Supplemental Platinum Triangle Traffic Impact Fees, which would fund
construction of planned improvements in the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan (including the planned and previously identified
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 43
fourth westbound through lane at Lewis Street/Katella Avenue). However, construction of the fourth westbound through lane is unlikely
to be possible by 2023. Therefore, an alternative improvement has been proposed, also consistent with the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan, which would return the intersection to a satisfactory LOS. This improvement would convert the southbound through
lane to a thorough/right-turn lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the high volume of southbound right-turn
vehicles observed in the latest traffic volume data. No modifications to traffic signal phasing would be necessary to implement this
improvement. Upon completion of the Katella Avenue widening project, the previously identified addition of a fourth westbound through
lane could be completed. The Project for Area E would be comprised of 257 dwelling units. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the
buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified land use plan, would result in an overall decrease in the number of vehicles
and vehicle miles traveled. Furthermore, the Projects would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified
EIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other hazardous
design features. Future projects within the Platinum Triangle, including developments on Areas B and E, would be required to dedicate
land, including construction easements, for the ultimate arterial highway rights‐of‐way to maintain LOS and access to the Platinum
Triangle area (Mitigation Measure 9‐14). Therefore, SEIR No. 339 found the impacts related to the design of hazardous project features
to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 9‐14 and 9‐15.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the property owner/ developer and/or the City would design and improve vehicle access within the
Platinum Triangle in accordance with the requirements of the City to reduce any emergency access impacts from buildout of the Platinum
Triangle, which includes Areas B and E. Development projects, including the Projects for Areas B and E, would be reviewed and
approved by the AFD prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided
during all phases of construction. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with emergency access to be less than significant with
implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning transportation would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1 (k)?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 44
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant, pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to the initial study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project that was analyzed in SEIR No. 339, no
cultural resources are known to exist on the proposed Platinum Triangle area, which includes Areas B and E. During the preparation of
SEIR No. 339, a letter requesting consultation with Native American representatives was sent out by the City of Anaheim on March 27,
2014. No responses from any of the Native American representatives contacted were received. No potentially significant impacts are
anticipated to occur, due to the nature and extent of surface and subsurface alteration that has occurred as a result of development that
has occurred on the Sites and in the Project Area. Furthermore, the A‐Town Metro property, which includes Area B and E, is not known
to be utilized by any Native Americans for religious or other culturally important rites and no important cultural resource sites have been
identified within the Project Area. Additionally, no formal cemeteries are located on the A‐Town Metro property or in the Project
environs and no human remains are known to exist in the Project Area. Although Project implementation would require grading and
excavation to implement the proposed improvements (i.e., mixed use development), the discovery of human remains is not anticipated.
Nonetheless, the Projects must comply with applicable laws when human remains are encountered during grading and construction to
ensure that no significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, including human remains. In the event that human remains are discovered,
construction activities must be halted or diverted until the provisions of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and §5097.98 of the
Public Resources Code have been implemented. As a result, Project implementation would not result in any new significant impacts
and no additional mitigation measures are required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on tribal cultural resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
£ £ £ R £
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 45
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
£ £ £ R £
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State and local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
£ £ £ R £
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• LMC-KTGY, A Town Block B Anaheim, CA, Trash Management Plan, American Trash Management, Inc., September 28,
2021 (Appendix F.1)
• LMC-KTGY, A Town Block E Anaheim, CA, Trash Management Plan, American Trash Management, Inc., September 28,
2021 (Appendix F.2)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Water: SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require the addition of new water facilities. Rule 15‐D of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates, and Regulations specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected
land use water demands within Anaheim, including within the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339
determined that Water Rule 15‐D of the City’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524C) would ensure that adequate
water facilities are provided to serve the Platinum Triangle area. Furthermore, as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the demand for the
Revised A‐Town Master Land Use Plan would be approximately 39 percent lower than the approved plan due to the proposed reduction
in development intensity. Finally, based on the water system hydraulic analysis prepared for the A‐Town project, domestic water would
be provided by the City of Anaheim through an existing 16‐inch waterline located in Katella Avenue and an existing 12‐inch main
located in Gene Autry Way.2 The proposed water system consists of 12‐inch water mains, which are connected to the City’s existing
mains. The proposed water system provides pressures greater than 45 pounds per square inch (psi) for all nodes during peak hour
demands and pressures greater than 20 psi during maximum day demands as well as 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow evens as
required by the City. The minimum residual pressure experience for the “worst case” 4,000 gpm fire flow event was 27 psi for both
Sites. As indicated in the Water System Hydraulic Analysis, all domestic water meters would require individual pressure reduction
devices to reduce the pressure to a maximum of 80 psi for each dwelling unit and commercial building with the Project Sites. As a result,
water supply and facilities are adequate to serve the future development with the Project Area. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated
with new or expanded water treatment facilities to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐
1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, 10‐6, 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 determined that based on the Water Supply Assessment for the PTMLUP, surplus water would be available through the
20‐year planning period. SEIR No. 339 impacts associated with water supplies were determined to be less than significant with
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16. Furthermore,
the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five (5)-year increments and
identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three
hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single-year, and multiple dry years. In its most recent UWMP, the City determined that it would
have reliable supplies to meet single-and multiple dry-year demands from 2020 through 2045. Demand would be met through diversified
supply and water conservation measures. The UWMP also includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that describes policies that
MWD and the City have in place to respond to catastrophic interruption and reduction in water supply. Moreover, in May 2015, the City
adopted Ordinance No. 6332 amending Chapter 10.18 of the Municipal Code in response to the State Water Resources Control Board's
emergency regulations. The Ordinance specifies voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures that can be implemented
depending on the level of water shortage. The Projects would not exceed water supplies or result in a significant increase in water
2 Water System Hydraulic Analysis; Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; December 2014.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 46
demand. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, implementation of the Projects would result in an overall decrease of water consumed by the
residential and commercial development when compared to the Approved A‐Town Master Land Use Plan land uses due to a proposed
reduction in development intensity. In addition, as previously noted the Project Sites are within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone of the
PTMLUP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration. Therefore, the Projects would not result
in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 339.
Wastewater: SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. Wastewater from the City
sewer system is conveyed to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The Project Area is
served by the Newhope‐Placentia Trunk (State College Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa
Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. With implementation of sewer system improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment
facilities, was anticipated to be adequate for development associated with the PTMLUP, which includes serving Areas B and E. Further,
it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a 10‐year storm event would be low and would not create a significant impact.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR
No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
Stormwater: SEIR No. 339 noted that the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary
Area identified that the existing storm drainage system was deficient under the existing conditions in the Platinum Triangle at the time
the SEIR was prepared. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of storm drain facilities would occur in compliance with engineering
standards and regulations and would not result in a significant environmental effect. Grading Plans prepared for proposed development
must include an approved drainage and erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading.
Additionally, development sites that encompass an area of 1.0 acre or greater would be subject to compliance with the NPDES program’s
General Construction Permit requirements and consequently the development and implementation of an SWPPP as prescribed by the
City of Anaheim. In addition, compliance with the City’s grading and excavation ordinance will also ensure that potential erosion and
loss of topsoil is minimized. Further, on-site grading and drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work
on Areas B and E would be required to meet the City’s and OCFCD flood control criteria including design discharges,
design/construction standards and maintenance features. The Projects would result in less imperviousness that would generate a
decreased peak runoff volume and flowrate. The Project Sites would be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed
curb‐inlet catch basins, located at relative low points on‐site. The catch basins would convey flows to proposed MWS for water quality
treatment through a proposed underground storm drain system. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Projects,
the Project applicant would have to comply with all applicable regulations and obtain a NPDES stormwater permit to indicate that the
Project features BMPs. As such, the Projects would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater
NPDES standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities were
determined to be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure10‐17 identified in SEIR No. 339.
Electrical Power: SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the PTMLUP would increase the electrical load on existing facilities
and would require both upgrades to the existing 12‐kilovolt distribution systems and construction of a new electrical substation. In
addition, the Projects for Areas B and E would be required to comply with the State energy efficiency standards (CCR Title 24), as
specified in Mitigation Measures 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐23, and 10‐24. SEIR No. 339 concluded that with implementation of the mitigation
measures, impacts on electrical service would be less than significant. With the necessary system upgrades and facility improvements,
SCG would be able to service the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, with natural gas. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded
that impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
Natural Gas: SEIR No. 339 states that implementation of the PTMLUP would increase the natural gas demand in the Project Area and
would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas transmission pipelines; placement of at least two additional pressure limiting stations; and
alteration of at least three miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase capacity. With necessary system upgrades and facility
improvements, Southern California Gas Company (SCG) would be able to service the PTMLUP, including Areas B and E, with natural
gas, which would be provided in accordance with SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission when
the contractual arrangements are made. Although the PTMLUP was found to create additional demands on natural gas supplies and
distribution infrastructure, the increased demands would be within the service capabilities of SCG, provided necessary improvements
are made in coordination with SCG. SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in any unavoidable
adverse impacts to natural gas service or resources.
Telecommunications: AT&T and Time‐Warner provide telephone and cable television service to the PTMLUP, respectively. According
to SEIR No. 339, no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service was identified. Consequently, SEIR No.
339 does not contain any specific analysis related to telephone service systems or cable television service. The Projects, are located
within an urbanized area within the City of Anaheim, and would be adequately served by telecommunications facilities. The Projects
would include on-site connections to off-site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area of the Project Sites.
Additionally, facilities and infrastructure for the various telecommunication providers are adequate to serve the needs of the Projects.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 47
The Projects would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. The Projects would result
in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
Solid Waste: SEIR No. 339 determined that the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Platinum Triangle area and would be
the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E. The PTMLUP would increase
the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. As discussed in Addendum No.
4, implementation of the Projects would result in an overall decrease of solid waste generated by the residential and commercial
development when compared to the approved A‐Town Master Land Use Plan land uses due to a proposed reduction in development
intensity. The SEIR concluded that there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the
anticipated solid waste stream generated by implementation of the PTMLUP. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with landfill
capacity to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the PTMLUP would generate increased construction and operational solid waste in the
area. Each development project in the Platinum Triangle, including the projects proposed for Areas B and E, would be required to submit
project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans
comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management
Program, as administered by the City of Anaheim. Areas B and E Trash Management Plans show compliance with AB 939 (1989)
requiring 50 percent diversion levels, AB 341 (2008) requiring all business generating four cubic yards of waste per week to actively
implement and participate in recycling programs, and AB 1826 (2014) mandating businesses divert organics (refer to Appendix F) for
details). SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations to be less than significant with incorporation
of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
associated with solid waste would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? £ £ £ R £
b. Due to the slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
£ £ £ R £
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risks or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
£ £ £ R £
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or £ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 48
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
stability, or drainage changes?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No 339 did not analyze Wildfire as it was previously approved before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard.
According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of Anaheim, the Project Sites are not within a State Responsibility
Area. The Project Sites are in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility area. The
Project Sites are flat and does not have a slope or other features that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The Projects would tie into existing
infrastructure that currently serves the Project Sites. Project implementation would not result in the new construction, installation, or
maintenance of new infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The Projects’ construction would not require the complete closure of
any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for
emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. The Projects would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no
impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Projects are in a developed, urbanized area, and surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes or
hills near the Project Sites that would have the potentially expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially 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?
£ £ £ R £
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)?
£ £ £ R £
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would not degrade the quality of the environment related to biological and cultural resources
because the Platinum Triangle is already developed and approved for redevelopment. In addition, the resulting increase in development
intensities would not further degrade the quality of the environment. No impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment
would occur and no mitigation was required. As discussed, and analyzed in this document, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 49
degrade the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Further, as discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Project Area does not contain any important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would result in cumulatively considerable air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic impacts. As a result
of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council. As discussed, and analyzed in this
document, the Projects for Areas B and E would not increase the severity or result in new impacts identified in SEIR No. 339. Therefore,
the Projects for Areas B and E would not increase the severity of a previous cumulative impact or result in any new cumulative impacts
not already analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would result in significant unavoidable air quality, land use, noise, traffic, and GHG impacts. As
a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on human beings would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 19, 2022
SUBJECT: FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00003 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06113
(DEV2020-00288)
LOCATION: The subject property is approximately 3.1 acres, at 1820 South Metro
Drive, approximately 135 feet south of the intersection of East Katella Avenue and
South State College Boulevard (A-Town Development Area E).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is PT
Metro, LLC represented by Paul Ogier and the agent is Ted Frattone from Hunsaker
and Associates.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a final site plan to construct a
257-unit multiple-family structure in Development Area E of the Lennar A-Town
development in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The
applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the
transfer of 40 residential units from various Development Areas within the A-Town
Metro Project to the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions, determining that the previously certified Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and associated
Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and
approving Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-
06113.
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND:
The 43.1-acre A-Town Metro Project (A-Town) site is located in the Industrial (I) Zone and the
PTMU Overlay Zone. The General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use and Park land
uses. The property is surrounded by multi-family and commercial uses to the north across Katella
Avenue; industrial, office, residential and commercial uses to the east; residential property to the
south across Gene Autry Way; and, industrial uses to the west.
A-Town was originally approved by the City Council on October 25, 2005. The project was
revised and subsequently approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. The revised project
permits development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and between 38,000 and 50,000
square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets within the eight
Development Areas. Final site plans for three of the eight A-Town Development Areas have been
approved by the Planning Commission in recent years, with one Development Area completed and
two under construction. Two additional Development Areas, including the 3.1-acre Development
Area E as described in this report, are presented for Planning Commission review at this meeting,
and three additional Development Areas will be presented to the Planning Commission for review
at a future date.
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 3 of 8
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct the Development Area E of A-Town with a
257-unit (for rent) multiple-family structure. Residential dwelling units will range in size from
approximately 551 square feet to 962 square feet. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 89
studio units, 118 one-bedroom units, and 50 two-bedroom units.
The proposed number of units exceeds the development allocation for Development Area E of the
A-Town Master Site Plan range of 93 to 217 residential dwelling units. The project will have a
residential density of 80.3 dwelling units per acre, which is greater than the target residential
density allocation for Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site Plan of 30 to 70 dwelling
units per acre. The Development Agreement for the A-Town project provides for the transfer of
unused residential dwelling units to this Development Area as discussed further below.
The project will provide 396 parking spaces within the six level above ground parking structure.
Vehicular access to the parking structure will be located on Metro Drive, approximately 170 feet
south of Katella Avenue.
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 4 of 8
Common area improvements for residents will include a first-floor amenity room, lobby, and
leasing office fronting South Metro Drive. A recreation courtyard will be located along the south
side of the structure with a pool, spa, sun deck, barbeque areas, and outdoor seating. Two smaller,
passive, recreation courtyards will be located along the east side of the structure facing State
College Boulevard with seating, picnic areas, and landscaping. In addition, a pedestrian plaza will
be located off the project’s street frontage on Metro Drive and include seating and landscaping.
The project is proposing a contemporary architectural style with street-level articulation along the
Metro Drive and State College Boulevard street frontages. Materials proposed include commercial
storefront glazing for the leasing office, decorative panels, and stucco in a variety of colors. The
parking structure located along the northern frontage, and visible from Katella Avenue and State
College Boulevard, will incorporate the proposed building massing, provide openings for
ventilation that will resemble windows, and include stucco in a variety of colors to screen the
parking structure from view. The majority of the structure is between 50 feet to 65 feet in height.
The largest massing will be located at the terminus of Park Street and above the pedestrian plaza
with a maximum height of 70 feet.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Master Site Plan: The City Council approved the A-Town Master Site Plan in 2015 in conjunction
with its approval of the development agreement. The Master Site Plan established eight
Development Areas (A through H) in the plan. The Code requires review and approval of final site
plans to implement the individual mixed-use or residential projects within each Development Area
of the Master Site Plan. The Planning Commission must review and approve these final site plans
at noticed public hearings prior to the issuance of building permits.
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 5 of 8
Parking: The project will provide 396 parking spaces within the six level above ground parking
structure. The Code (at the time of the development agreement approval) requires a minimum of
388 parking spaces for the proposed 257 residential units. Parking for the proposed project will
comply with the Code requirements that were in place at the time the Council approved the
development agreement for the A-Town Master Site Plan.
The City Council has subsequently adopted higher parking requirements for the Platinum Triangle
that are consistent with the parking requirements for multi-family housing throughout the City;
however, the approved development agreement “locks in” the Code requirements in place at the
time of the approval of the development agreement.
Final Site Plan: Before the Planning Commission may approve a final site plan application, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan,
any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials,
texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained;
and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed final site plan was designed to be consistent with the General Plan, the PTMLUP,
the PTMU Overlay Zone, and the A-Town Master Site Plan. The project's site design incorporates
the following features to comply with the design standards of the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay
Zone, and the A-Town Master Site Plan to provide a vibrant walkable community with high quality
landscaping and architecture.
• Architectural features that are compatible with the surrounding environment and designed
to create attractive street scenes along Metro Drive and State College Boulevard. The
project also includes varied rooflines, colors, and building articulation.
• An enhanced architectural elevation above the pedestrian plaza fronting Metro Drive that
will serve as a view terminus from Aloe Greens Park, Market Street, and Park Street.
• Landscaping and trees will create visual interest as well as complement the building
architecture along Metro Drive and State College Boulevard.
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 6 of 8
• A pedestrian plaza with landscaping, enhanced paving, and outdoor seating at the terminus
of Park Street will provide a passive gathering place for residents of the neighborhood.
• The primary residential courtyard is designed with southern sunlight exposure to maximize
sunlight for the amenities proposed, which include a pool, spa, sundeck, outdoor dining,
and barbeque areas.
The layout of the development is compatible with the street configuration of the A-Town Master
Site Plan and with the adjacent industrial and future residential properties to the south and west.
Staff believes that this apartment project would not interfere with the use or enjoyment of the
neighboring and future developments that that this property would create a desirable urban
environment for the residents. For these reasons staff recommends approval of the final site plan.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The Master Site Plan includes a minimum and maximum
development range for the build-out of the A-Town. This range allows the development of a
minimum of 1,400 residential units and a maximum of 1,746 residential units within the eight
Development Areas. Each Development Area has a target density range for the minimum and
maximum number of residential units permitted. Each Development Area can develop within that
density range, provided the total units in the Master Site Plan did not go below the minimum or
above the maximum number of units. In addition, Section 10 of the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 approved by the City Council for A-Town allows for
transfer of unused residential dwelling units to Development Areas that do not already have
approved final site plans, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The development
agreement stipulates that the transfer of unused residential dwelling units must not exceed 120%
of the maximum unit allocation of the receiving Development Area. The unit range for
Development Area E is 93-217 dwelling units. The proposed project (257 units) is above this unit
range and will need a transfer of unused residential dwelling units to this Development Area.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the transfer 40 units from various
Development Areas within A-Town to Development Area E to accommodate the increase in
residential dwelling units and residential density. The applicant is proposing to transfer 20 units
from Development Area F, five units from Development Area G, and 15 units from Development
Area H. With the transfer of 40 units, the unit allocation for Development Area E will be 118%
above the target allocation, but within the 120% maximum increase allowed under the
development agreement.
Before the Planning Commission may approve a CUP, it must make a finding of fact that the
evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a CUP is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 7 of 8
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular
area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the CUP under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
In accordance with the required findings for a CUP, staff believes that the proposed transfer of
unused residential dwelling units from Development Area F, Development Area G, and
Development Area H to Development Area E would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses,
as the number of overall units permitted by the A-Town Master Site Plan remains the same. The
proposed project is designed to allow the full development of the site and would not be detrimental
to the health or safety of the residents. The transfer of unused dwelling units would not have any
effect on the traffic generated by the use and would not impose a burden on the streets in the
development. Staff believes that the proposed transfer of dwelling units would further the
objectives of the PTMU Overlay Zone by contributing to the unique integrated, walkable urban
environment that encourages pedestrian activity and uses that are harmonious with the character
of the area. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that
previously certified Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 and associated Addenda, are the appropriate environmental documentation for
this request. An environmental checklist (Attachment No. 6) was prepared to determine that the
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, and
subsequent addenda, adequately analyzed the anticipated effects of the proposed project; and, that
the approved mitigation measures are appropriate for the project.
CONCLUSION: The proposed development is a carefully designed and planned project that
continues the implementation of the A-Town Master Site Plan. The project also conforms to the
PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, and the A-Town Master Site Plan and staff believes that the
proposed development would be an appropriate addition to the Platinum Triangle. Staff
recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Lisandro Orozco Scott Koehm
Senior Planner Principal Planner
DEV2020-00288 (Area E)
January 19, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Attachments:
1. Draft Final Site Plan Resolution
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Final Site Plan Exhibits
4. Letter of Request
5. A-Town Master Site Plan Residential and Commercial Tracking Table
6. FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda
7. Environmental Checklist For EIR 339 for Area B & E
8. Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008
E KATELLA AVE
S STATE COLLEGE BLVDS CAMPTON AVEE PARK ST
S UNION STHUDSON PLS METRO DRRIGNEY WAYE. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S.LEWISSTE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STE. GENE AUTRY WAYS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS.DOUGLASSRDS. CLEMENTINE ST2666 Wes t Lincoln Bouleva rd
DE V N o. 202 0-00288
Subject Property
APN: 232-121-33
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2021
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
DEV 2020-00288
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
BANK
O-L (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
COMMUNITY BANK
O-L (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
PARKING LOT
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area B
JEFFERSON PLATINUM TRIANGLE SOUTH APARTMENTS
193 DU
I (PTMU)
Gene Autry Sub-Area C
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY
OFFICES
I (PTMU)Katella Sub-Area B
PARK VIRIDIAN APARTMENTS
325 DU
I (PTMU)
Gene Autry Sub-Area C
INDUSTRIAL
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
VACANT
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
MCDONALDS
PR (PTMU)
Stadium
OFFICES
O-L (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES
272 DU
O-L (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
DENNY'S
O-L (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area C
CARL'S JR.
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
RETAIL
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
STADIUM LOFTS APARTMENTS
397 DU
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
SERVICE STATION
I (PTMU)
Katella Sub-Area B
JEFFERSON
PLATINUM
TRIANGLE SOUTH
APARTMENTS
193 DU
E KATELLA AVE
S STATE COLLEGE BLVDE PARK ST
S UNION STHUDSON PLS METRO DRRIGNEY WAYE. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S.LEWISSTE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STE. GENE AUTRY WAYS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS.DOUGLASSRDS. CLEMENTINE ST2666 Wes t Lincoln Bouleva rd
DE V N o. 202 0-00288
Subject Property
APN: 232-121-33
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2021
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2022-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT AREA 'E' OF THE MASTER SITE PLAN
APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00003)
(DEV2020-00288)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
- 2 - PC2022-***
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
- 3 - PC2022-***
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project;
and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
- 4 - PC2022-***
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
- 5 - PC2022-***
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
- 6 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Exisiting Entitlements
was approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27,
2015, the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015
as Instrument No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
- 7 - PC2022-***
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Final Site Plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing to ensure
conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 to construct a multiple-family development with 257-
residential dwelling units (for rent) at 1820 South Metro Drive, approximately 135 feet south of
the intersection of East Katella Avenue and South State College Boulevard, in Development Area
E of the Lennar A-Town development in the Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim, County of
- 8 - PC2022-***
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003, and environmental
checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant environmental
impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339 Addendum No. 4
would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more
severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any changes in
circumstances involving the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003; therefore, the Final Site Plan No.
2021-00003 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously
identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts on human
beings would occur because of the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339. FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements collectively constitute the
environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and
the City's CEQA Procedures relating to the Existing Entitlements and shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and
against proposed Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's CEQA Procedures, this Planning Commission has found and determined and has
recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating
to the Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project.
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution,
the CEQA Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plan No. 2021-
00003 and the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 321 for the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted.
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under
CEQA for Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003; and
- 9 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does find and determine that the request for a Final
Site Plan for the Proposed Project should be approved for the following reasons:
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, the Final Site Plan, including its design and
layout, complies with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Zone, as
described in Chapter 18.20 of the Code.
2. The design and layout of Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 will not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 is compatible with the
character of the surrounding residential and industrial development located within the land area of
the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
4. The design of the Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 will provide a desirable
environment for its residents, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of
materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately
maintained.
5. Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares
that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all
evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003, Addendum No. 4, the other CEQA
Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends that the
Planning Commission approve Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003, in the form presented at the
meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval of (1)
- 10 - PC2022-***
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth relating to the propose Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid
or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 19, 2022.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 11 - PC2022-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 19, 2022, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of January, 2022.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-12- PC2022-***
-13- PC2022-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2021-00003
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
1 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public
Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the
conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
2 Plans shall specifically indicate that all vehicular ramps and grades
conform to all applicable Engineering Standards.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
3 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad
elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion
control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance
with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest
edition.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
4 Prepare and submit a final drainage study, including supporting
hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and
approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's
adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm
water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan
land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution
and shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system
connection points and all downstream drainage-mitigating measures
including but not limited to offsite storm drains and interim detention
facilities.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
5 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
6 The owner shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction
Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to
the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent
notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID)
number.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
7 The owner shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available
for Public Works Development Services Division review upon request.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
8 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for
review and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
-14- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/
Significant Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of
pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the
proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff
from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment
Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMPs) to control or
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and
provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation
of and compliance with the defined BMPs.
9 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works
Development Services Division for review and approval. The report
shall address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
10 Condition Numbers 37 through 40 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
11 Condition Numbers 42 through 64 and 66 through 86 of PC2015-069
for the original approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to
this permit.
Various City
Departments
12 A Fire Master Plan shall be submitted at the time that grading plans are
submitted to Public Works for review and approval prior to building
permit issuance. Plan shall include (but not be limited to) emergency
vehicle site access, water availability and fire flow requirements, any
interior laddering requirements, and fire protection features like fire
sprinklers and alarms.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
13 Permanent, temporary, and phased emergency access roads shall be
designed and maintained to support an imposed load of 78,000 lbs. and
surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
14 2019 CFC §510 – Emergency responder radio coverage (BDA/DAS)
shall be provided for the proposed new building(s).
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
15 A minimum 26’ width for the fire access road is required for the
proposed structure and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6
inches.
Fire & Rescue
Community Risk
Reduction Division
16 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to
establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system
plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related
technical drawings and specifications.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
-15- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
17 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection,
domestic water, and irrigation shall be provided and shown on plans
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
18 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section
537-537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be
furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter
shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing
maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters
shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in
the Master CC&Rs for the project.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
19 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the
street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and
approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control
Inspector.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
20 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines,
as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing
water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated
and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
21 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current
Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire
line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued
use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed.
The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to
abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
22 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i)
an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire
hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire
hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement
for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of
the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the
Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s
standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include
language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any
special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but
not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete,
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-16- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged
during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water
facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all
surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the
responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master
CC&Rs for the project.
23 The developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan, including
a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities Water
Engineering review and approval. The master plan shall demonstrate the
adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the project’s
water demands and fire protection requirements.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
24 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department
Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water
system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and
Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
25 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for
each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
26 Plans shall specifically indicate that all vehicular ramps and grades
conform to all applicable Engineering Standards.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
27 Plans for the parking structure shall demonstrate that at-grade ducts and
overhead pipes shall not encroach in the parking space areas or required
vehicle clearance areas.
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
28 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit draft
Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are prepared by
an authorized professional for review and approval by the City
Engineer, Planning Director, and City Attorney, which will generally
provide for the following:
a) A requirement that residents shall use designated parking area,
including garages, only for the parking of vehicles.
b) A provision that parking garages are subject to inspection by the
Association or City of Anaheim staff.
c) A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs
shall be submitted for review to the City Engineer, Planning
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
-17- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney
prior to the amendment being valid.
d) A provision that the City is a third-party beneficiary to the
CC&Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any
of the provisions of the CC&Rs relative to common area and
utility maintenance, Water Quality Management Plan, and
internal parking.
29 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that
the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City
approved grading plan.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
30 A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the
Development Services Division for all work performed in the public
right-of-way.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
31 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Development Services
Division for review and approval a Lot Line Adjustment document. The
document shall be approved by the City Surveyor and recorded, along
with conforming deed, in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
32 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted
Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in
compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (AV 1881).
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
33 Submit an interim soils report indicating pad compaction and site
stability prepared by the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The
pad compaction report needs to include a site plan showing the
compaction testing locations.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO FIRST FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FOR EACH FINAL SITE PLAN
34 Condition Numbers 87 through 99 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
35 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to
the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as
shown on the approved utility service plan.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
36 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit
payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
37 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention
assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property,
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
-18- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public
Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements.
38 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled
on building plans.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
39 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
40 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer,
inspected and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building
and zoning inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
41 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must
be paid in full.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
42 Set all monuments in accordance with the final map and submit all
centerline ties to Public Works Department. Any monuments damaged
as a result of construction shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
43 Record Drawings and As-Built Plans shall be submitted for review and
approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services
Division.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
44 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface
improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way,
public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited
to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative
hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation,
repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for
maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included
in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement
deeds.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
45 The project description states that deliveries to the market will be
coordinated as part of the store’s operations, allowing a flagman to
control traffic while a truck backs into the loading dock off of Westside
Drive. Due to the proximity of the loading dock to Katella Avenue, a
flagger would be required when a truck backs into the loading dock. In
Public Works
Traffic Engineering
-19- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
addition, all truck operations must be outside of the AM and PM peak
hours with no deliveries at night (daylight hours only).
GENERAL
46 Condition Numbers 111 through 128 of PC2015-069 for the original
approval of the A-Town Master Site Plan shall apply to this permit.
Various City
Departments
47 All conditions of approval and mitigations measures approved in
conjunction with the Development Agreements for the Master Site Plan
for the A-Town Development shall apply to this Final Site Plan
approval.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
48 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
49 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new
and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants,
service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.):
• 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power
poles, street lights, and trees.
• 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other
utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground
facilities.
• 6—feet minimum separation from curb face.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
50 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
51 No public water mains or laterals shall be installed under parking stalls,
parking lots, or driveways.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
52 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no
equals.
Public Utilities,
Water Engineering
53 The property owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with
and any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all
mitigation measures set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(MMP) No. 321, established by the City of Anaheim as required by
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation
of those identified mitigation measures within the timeframes identified
in the measure. MMP No. 321 is made a part of these conditions of
approval by reference.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
54 Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
-20- PC2022-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
55 The developer shall pay all applicable fees required under the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Public Works,
Development Services
Division
56 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying
and holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City
Council from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the
foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related
decision, or the adoption of any environmental documents which relates
to the approval of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall
include, but is not limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses,
attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be awarded to the
prevailing party, and costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other costs,
liabilities and expenses arising out of or in connection with the approval
of the application or related decision, whether or not there is concurrent,
or passive negligence on the part of the City, its agents, officers, council
members, employees, boards, commissions and their members and the
City Council. The property owner/developer shall have the right to
select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing
the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for any
costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the course of the
defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City Council's
adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2019-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 'E' OF THE MASTER SITE
PLAN APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008C, AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06113)
(DEV2020-00288)
WHEREAS, the Platinum Triangle comprises approximately 820 acres located at the
confluence of the Interstate 5 and State Route 57 ("SR-57 Freeway") freeways in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west
of the Santa Ana River channel and the SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison
easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel
Stadium, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center ("ARTIC"), and surrounding residential and mixed use
development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels,
restaurants, and retail development; and
WHEREAS, since 1996, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has
approved several actions relating to the area encompassed by the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 1996, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 320 and adopted Area Development Plan No. 120 for that portion of the Angel Stadium
property associated with the Sportstown Development. Area Development Plan No. 120 entitled
a total of 119,543 seats for new and/or renovated stadiums, 750,000 square feet of urban
entertainment/retail uses, a 500-room hotel (550,000 square feet), a 150,000-square-foot exhibition
center, 250,000 square feet of office development, and 15,570 on-site parking spaces. The Grove
of Anaheim, the Angel Stadium and the Stadium Gateway Office Building were either developed
or renovated under Area Development Plan No. 120; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Stadium Area
Master Land Use Plan ("MLUP"). The boundaries of the MLUP were generally the same as those
for the Platinum Triangle, with the exception that the MLUP included 15 acres adjacent to the
Interstate 5 freeway that are not a part of the current Platinum Triangle boundaries. As part of the
approval process for the MLUP, the City Council also certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 321 and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106. Development within the
boundaries of the MLUP was implemented through the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone ("SE
Overlay Zone"), which permitted current uses to continue or expand within the provisions of the
existing zoning, while providing those who may want to develop sports, entertainment, retail, and
office uses with standards appropriate to those uses, including increased land use intensity.
Implementation of the SE Overlay Zone was projected to result in a net loss of 491,303 square feet
of industrial space and increases of 1,871,285 square feet of new office space, 452,026 square feet
of new retail space, and 991,603 square feet of new hotel space. Projects that were developed under
- 2 - PC2022-***
the SE Overlay Zone included the Ayers Hotel, the Arena Corporate Center, and the Westwood
School of Technology; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide
General Plan and Zoning Code Update, which included a new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
The General Plan Update (known as "General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419") changed the
General Plan designations within the Platinum Triangle from Commercial Recreation and Business
Office/Mixed Use/Industrial to Mixed-Use, Office-High, Office-Low, Industrial, Open Space and
Institutional to provide opportunities for existing uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office,
and commercial uses. The General Plan Update also established the overall maximum
development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which permitted up to 9,175 dwelling units,
5,000,000 square feet of office space, 2,044,300 square feet of commercial uses, industrial
development at a maximum floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.50, and institutional development at a
maximum FAR of 3.0. In addition, the square footage/seats allocated to the existing Honda Center
and all of the development intensity entitled by Area Development Plan No. 120 was incorporated
into the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), which was prepared for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update and
associated actions, analyzed the aforementioned development intensities on a City-wide impact
level and adopted mitigation monitoring programs, including that certain Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004 and in order to provide the implementation tools
necessary to realize the City’s new vision for the Platinum Triangle, the City Council replaced the
MLUP with the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (the "PTMLUP"), replaced the SE
Overlay Zone with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"),
approved the form of a Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement, and approved
associated zoning reclassifications. Under those updated zoning regulations, property owners
desiring to develop under the PTMU Overlay Zone provisions were thereafter required to enter
into a standardized Development Agreement with the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 ("FSEIR No. 332"), adopted a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to provide for the implementation of the PTMLUP, in conjunction
with its consideration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous
Case No. 2005-00089 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036, which collectively allowed
for an increase in the allowable development intensities within the Platinum Triangle to 9,500
residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, also on October 25, 2005 and in response to the application of Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC (“Original Developer”), Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson
Family Trust, Julius Realty Corporation, Traffic Control Services, Inc., Joselito D. Ong and Renee
Dee Ong, Roger C. Treichler and Vicki Treichler, as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust,
the Robert Stovall Family Partnership, L.P. and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in
common (collectively referred to herein, along with the Original Developer, as the "Original
Owner") for entitlements allowing for the development of up to 2,681 residences with a mix of
housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes and
lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development, public park space
and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases (the "Original Project") on certain real
- 3 - PC2022-***
property consisting of approximately 43 acres and bounded by State College Boulevard on the
east, Gene Autry Way on the south, and Katella Avenue on the north (the "Property"), the City
Council determined that FSEIR No. 332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A to add new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an
Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were,
collectively, adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Original
Project and that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for the Original
Project and the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) for the Original Project.
The Property is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the entitlements for the Original Project consisted of (1) General Plan
Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "Office-High" land use designation to the
"Mixed-Use" land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00111 to amend the
PTMLUP to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Katella District of the PTMU
Overlay Zone; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council Resolution
No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification No. 2005-
00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the "I" Industrial Zone to the PTMU
Overlay Zone, meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property
in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I"
Industrial Zone; (5) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately
10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting
residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) Development
Agreement No. 2005-0008; and (7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes
(collectively, the “Original Development Approvals”); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Original Development
Approvals for the Original Project; thereafter, the City and the Original Owner entered into the
Original Development Agreement on or about November 8, 2005, which was recorded in the
Official Records of the County of Orange on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in reliance on the Original Development Approvals, the Original Developer
constructed certain improvements on and about the Property in accordance with the design of Tract
Map No. 16859; and
WHEREAS, following the certification of FSEIR No. 332, the City Council approved two
addenda to FSEIR No. 332 in conjunction with requests to increase the Platinum Triangle intensity
by 67 residential units, 55,550 square feet of office development, and 10,000 square feet of
commercial uses. A project Environmental Impact Report was also approved to increase the
allowable development intensities by an additional 699 residential units to bring the total allowable
development intensity within the Platinum Triangle up to 10,266 residential units, 5,055,550
square feet of office uses, and 2,264,400 square feet of commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City embarked upon a process to amend the General
Plan, the PTMLUP, the PTMU Overlay Zone, the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development
Agreement, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities
within the Platinum Triangle to up to 18,363 residential units, 5,657,847 square feet of commercial
- 4 - PC2022-***
uses, 16,819,015 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses (the
"Platinum Triangle Expansion Project"); and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 334 ("FSEIR No. 334") adopting a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 106A in conjunction with its consideration and approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2004-00036, and a series of other related actions in order to provide for the implementation
of the PTMLUP and approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. The City
Council thereafter repealed the approval of the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, including
FSEIR No. 334 and various related actions, and directed staff to prepare a new Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Original Development
Agreement to extend the term for an initial period of five (5) years to an initial period of ten (10)
years and for revisions to the "Term Extension Milestones" was approved by the City Council on
December 16, 2008. Accordingly, on or about January 21, 2009, the City and Developer entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Original Development Agreement, which was recorded
in the Official Records on February 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000081175 (“Amendment
No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2010, the City Council approved the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which included amendments to the General Plan ("General
Plan Amendment No. 2008-00471"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188"), the
PTMU Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development
intensities within the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential
units, 14,340,522 square feet of office uses, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses, and
1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses. Before approving said amendments and zoning
reclassifications, the City Council approved and certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" for the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project, including Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
106C (collectively referred to herein as "FSEIR No. 339"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 17, 2012 ("Addendum No.
1"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Katella Avenue/I-5
Undercrossing Improvements project because none of the conditions described in Section 15162
of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("State CEQA Guidelines") calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report had occurred; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the General
Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2012-00486"), the PTMLUP ("Miscellaneous Case No.
2012-00559"), and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-00107") to
increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount of office and commercial
development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of the Platinum Triangle and
to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition of a public park; and
- 5 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to FSEIR No. 339, dated December 3, 2012 ("Addendum
No. 2"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions
to a master planned mixed-use project on a 7.01-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as
905-917 East Katella Avenue to allow the development of 399 dwelling units (the "Platinum
Gateway Project"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to FSEIR No. 339, dated August 2014 ("Addendum No.
3"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a
master planned mixed-use project on a 4.13-acre (approximate) parcel commonly known as 1005-
11105 East Katella Avenue to increase the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 (the "Platinum Vista Project"). On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council
adopted General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00495 to permit the increase in the number of
dwelling units for the Platinum Vista Project. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No. 6319
had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within the
Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to recordation of Amendment No. 1, fee title interest in the
Property was transferred, and the Existing Development Agreement was assigned, to PT Metro,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"); and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2015 ("Addendum No.
4"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to the
Existing Entitlements for a master planned mixed-use project on a 43.1-acre (approximate)
property commonly known as 1404 East Katella Avenue to permit between 1,400 and 1,746
residential units, between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks and
a network of local streets (the "A-Town Project"). On October 6, 2015 the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 6344 to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to (1) modify the
requirement for ground floor commercial uses on Market Street, (2) clarify that ground floor
commercial uses are required on Gene Autry Way east of Union Street, and (3) expand the size of
the Gene Autry District from 33 acres to 43 acres as part of a revised project design for the “A-
Town” Project located at State College Boulevard immediately north of Gene Autry Way; and
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to Amendment No. 1 of the
Original Development Agreement to correspond with the changes to the Existing Entitlements was
approved by the City Council on October 20, 2015. Accordingly, on or about October 27, 2015,
the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, which was recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2015 as Instrument
No. 2015000586936 (“Amended and Restated Development Agreement”); and
- 6 - PC2022-***
WHEREAS, the Developer's request for an amendment to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement to amend the Exhibit “G” Term Extension Milestones relative to the
timing and completion of residential units within the 5-year and 7.5-year anniversary periods was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018. Accordingly, on or about June 21, 2018, the City
and Developer entered into that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, which was recorded in the Official Records on May 3, 2019 as
Instrument No. 2019000148064(“Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amended and
Restated Development Agreement, and Amendment No.1 to the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing Development
Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Development Agreement, the Original Development Approvals,
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490, Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2013-00112, Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008C, the Master Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17703, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Existing Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 5 to FSEIR No. 339, dated June 2016 ("Addendum No. 5"),
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with proposed revisions to a master
planned mixed-use project on a 17.5-acre (approximate) property located at the southwest corner
of State College Boulevard and Gene Autry Way to permit 1,079 residential units, including 12
live/work units; 14,600 square feet of commercial space; a 1.1-acre public park; and, local streets
(the "Jefferson Stadium Park Project"). On June 21, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
6373 to approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Jefferson at Stadium
Park, L.P. to develop the Jefferson Stadium Park Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to
amend the Land Use, Green and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reflect the relocation
of the proposed public park and proposed street alignment, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to reconfigure internal streets, reflect the relocation of a
proposed park, and designate areas currently assigned for park use for mixed-use development,
and (3) a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into three numbered lots that correspond with
the proposed buildings and one lettered lot for the proposed park. The tentative parcel map also
establishes the new alignment and configuration of internal public streets and a public park to be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 6 to FSEIR No. 339, dated October 2016 ("Addendum No.
6"), was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with a proposed master
planned mixed-use project on a 14.8-acre (approximate) property located at the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue to permit 405 residential units; 77,000 square
feet of office; and 583,000 square feet of commercial uses including a 200-room hotel (the "LT
Platinum Center Project"). On October 25, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6387 to
approve a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and LTG Platinum LLC, to
develop the LT Platinum Center Project with a (1) General Plan Amendment to revise Table LU-
4, General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City, to modify the density provisions
for properties within the Platinum Triangle area that are designated for mixed-use land use, to
reduce the maximum number of dwelling units from 19,027 to 17,348 units; to increase the
maximum square feet of commercial space from 4,735,111 to 4,782,243; and, to reduce the
maximum of amount of office space from 9,652,747 to 9,180,747 square feet. In addition,
- 7 - PC2022-***
modifications to the Land Use Plan (Figure LU-4), Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities (Figure
C-5) and Green Plan (Figure G‐5) of the Anaheim General Plan are required in order to remove
the designation of a public park on the project site, (2) amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) to revise the district boundaries for the Stadium and Gateway Districts;
allow a reduction, conversion and transfer of unused development intensity from the Gateway,
Gene Autry, Katella, and Orangewood Districts to the Stadium District; revise development
intensities consistent with the transfers and reductions described above, and modify the park and
street locations consistent with the proposed project, (3) a conditional use permit to allow the sale
of alcoholic beverages at various venues within the LT Platinum project; (4) a tentative tract map
to subdivide the project site into two parcels that correspond to the two Development Areas shown
on the proposed Master Site Plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 7 to FSEIR No. 339, dated March 2017 (“Addendum No. 7”)
was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Gene Autry Way and
State College Boulevard Improvement Projects to widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six
lanes with medians and storm drain and stormwater improvements; widen the west side of State
College Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a southbound
right‐turn lane and a third through‐ lane; make improvements to the east side of the intersection of
State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way, which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of
Anaheim; and construct a new intersection on Gene Autry Way at Union Street to provide access
to planned development areas; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 8 to FSEIR No. 339, dated April 10, 2018, (“Addendum No.
8”) was prepared and considered by the City Council in connection with the Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project which included roadway improvements specified in the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan (PTIP). The Approved Project included the widening of Orangewood
Avenue from a four‐lane divided primary arterial to a six‐lane divided primary arterial between
State College Boulevard and State Route 57 (SR‐57). It also included an extension of the Class II
Bikeway on Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to the eastern City limit
(via West Dupont Drive and private properties); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
requires conditional use permits to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a
noticed public hearing to make a finding of fact, by resolution, to verify compliance with Section
18.66.060 (Findings) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 to allow the transfer of 40 residential units
from various Development Areas within the A-Town Metro Project to the subject property at 1820
South Metro Drive, approximately 135 feet south of the intersection of East Katella Avenue and
South State College Boulevard, in Development Area E of the Lennar A-Town development in
the Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113, and
environmental checklist review was prepared in order to determine whether any significant
environmental impacts which were not identified in the previously-approved FSEIR No. 339
Addendum No. 4 would result or whether previously identified significant impacts would be
substantially more severe. The analysis in the environmental checklist review did not identify any
- 8 - PC2022-***
changes in circumstances involving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113; therefore,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 would not result in new impacts or impacts of greater
severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation
measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible.
Therefore, no new impacts on human beings would occur because of the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2021-06113, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
FSEIR No. 339, and Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in
conjunction with FSEIR No. 339, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the Existing
Entitlements collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as
the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's CEQA Procedures relating to the Existing
Entitlements and shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents"; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and
against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the City's CEQA Procedures, this Planning Commission has found and determined and has
recommended that the City Council so find and determine the following:
1. That Addendum No. 4 together with the CEQA Documents collectively
constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating to the
Proposed New Entitlements and the Revised Project; and
2. That, pursuant to the findings contained in said concurrent resolution, the CEQA
Documents satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 and
the Existing Entitlements and, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 321 for
the Existing Entitlements, should be approved and adopted; and
3. That no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-
06113 on the Property does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 is an
allowable use within the "PTMU” Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone under subsection
.060 of Section 18.20.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone)
of the Code, subject to the zoning and development standards of the "PTMU" Platinum Triangle
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone.
- 9 - PC2022-***
2. The proposed request to permit Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 would not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 will continue to further
the vision of the Platinum Triangle by contributing to an overall urban design framework ensuring
that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the
character of the area in which they are located.
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety because the site will accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and circulation
without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties.
4. That Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113 will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
request to transfer 40 residential units from various Development Areas within the A-Town Metro
Project to the subject property will not produce any additional traffic beyond what was analyzed
and approved in FSEIR No. 339 and Addenda and what was approved in the Existing Entitlements.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and
safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113
would further the objectives of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, subject to
compliance with the conditions contained herein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares
that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all
evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the above findings and based upon
a thorough review of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113, Addendum No. 4, the
CEQA Documents, and the evidence received to date, does hereby approve and recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06113, in the form presented
at the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted, contingent upon and subject to the approval
of (1) Final Site Plan No. 2021-00003, now pending, (2) the mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 321; and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
- 10 - PC2022-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and
all of the conditions set forth relating to the propose Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 2005-00008C. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid
or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 19, 2022.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Laverne Ortiz, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 19, 2022, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of January, 2022.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-11- PC2022-***
-12- PC2022-***
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06113
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
1 The project shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant, which
plans are on file with the Planning Division, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
2 The project is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' indemnifying and
holding harmless the City, its agents, officers, council members,
employees, boards, commissions and their members and the City Council
from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing
individuals or entities, the purpose of such litigation being to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval of the application or related decision, or
the adoption of any environmental documents which relates to the approval
of the Proposed Actions. This indemnification shall include, but is not
limited to, all reasonable damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert
witness fees that may be awarded to the prevailing party, and costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of or in
connection with the approval of the application or related decision, whether
or not there is concurrent, or passive negligence on the part of the City, its
agents, officers, council members, employees, boards, commissions and
their members and the City Council. The property owner/developer shall
have the right to select legal counsel. The City shall have the right to
approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal
counsel providing the City’s defense, and the applicant shall reimburse the
City for any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in the
course of the defense. No later than 30 (thirty) days following the City
Council's adoption of the Ordinance adopting Development Agreement
No. 2005-00008, the legal property owner shall provide a letter to the City
satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office memorializing the foregoing.
Planning and Building
Department /
City Attorney’s Office
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A0.0COVER SHEET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
APPLICANT
LMC
95 Enterprise
Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
ARCHITECT
KTGY
17911 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
CIVIL
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
3 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
LANDSCAPE
C2 COLLABORATIVE
100 Avenida Mirama
San Clemente, CA 92672
SHEET INDEX
A0.0 COVER SHEET
A0.1 PROJECT DATA & NOTES
A1.0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A2.1 PERSPECTIVE
A2.2 PERSPECTIVE
A2.3 PERSPECTIVE
A2.4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.6 COLOR & MATERIAL
A2.7 BUILDING SECTIONS
A3.0 BUILDING PLAN - LVL 1
A3.1 BUILDING PLAN - LVL 2
A3.2 BUILDING PLAN - LVL 3 (LVL 4 SIM.)
A3.3 BUILDING PLAN - LVL 5
A3.4 BUILDING PLAN - ROOF
A3.5 DRIVEWAY / RAMP / PARKING EXHIBIT
A3.6 SHADE & SHADOW STUDY
A5.0 UNIT PLANS
A5.1 UNIT PLANS
A5.2 UNIT PLANS
A5.3 UNIT PLANS
TR0.1 LEVEL 1 SITE PLAN
TR0.2 SITE PLAN UPPER FLOORS
TR0.3 TURN STUDIES OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS
TR1.0 RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM DETAILS
TR2.0 30" CHUTE DETAILS
C1 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN
C2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN - OVERALL
L-2 REC AREA ENLARGEMENT PLAN
L-3 MASTER PLANT LIST
L-4 IRRIGATION PLAN
L-5 REC-LEISURE PLAN
L-6 REC-LEISURE PLAN
L-7 ENTRY PLAZA ENLARGEMENT
L-8 TRANSFORMER SCREENING EXHIBIT
L-9 TRANSFORMER SCREENING EXHIBIT
LD-1.1 BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 1
LD-2.1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION PLANS - LVL 1
LD-3.1 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.2 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.3 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
LD-3.4 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
F-1 TITLE SHEET
F-2 OVERALL FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-3 DEVELOPMENT AREA E FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
F-4 DEVELOPMENT AREA E ELEVATIONS
F-5 DEVELOPMENT AREA E SECTIONS
TRASH
AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT
1900 Powell Street
Suite 220
Emeryville, CA 94608
LIGHTING
LIGHTING DESIGN ALLIANCE
2830 Temple Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90806
FIRE
FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS
302 N. El Camino Real
Suite 208
San Clemente, CA 92672
ATTACHMENT 3
ZONING/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT
UNIT RANGE
RES. DENSITY RANGE
COMMERCIAL RANGE
MAX. SITE COVERAGE
MIN. SETBACKS
STATE COLLEGE BLVD
METRO ST
NORTH (INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE)
SOUTH (INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE)
REC-LEISURE AREAS
STORAGE
LOADING ZONES
100'
93 - 217 UNITS (MAX. ALLOWED 260 UNITS*)
30 - 70 DU/ACRE (MAX. ALLOWED 84 DU/AC*)
N/A
75%
16' (RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MAY
ENCROACH 3')
10'
5'
5'
200 SF PER UNIT (51,400 SF)
100 CF PER UNIT
1 OFF-STREET LOADING ZONE PER 150 UNITS
SITE ADDRESS: 1820 S. METRO DR.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
APN: 232-121-33
SITE AREA (ORIGINAL): 3.1 ACRES
SITE AREA (PROPOSED): 3.2 ACRES
ZONING: PLATINUM TRIANGEL MASTER LAND USE PLAN &
PLATIUNUM TRINGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE
71'
257 UNITS
80.3 DU/ACRE
N/A
± 64%
16'
10'
5'
5'
52,399 SF (SEE L-5 & L-6)
SEE STORAGE SCHEDULE (A0.1)
1 OFF-STREET LOADING ZONE
PROJECT & ZONING SUMMARY
* PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWS 20% INCREASE TRANSFERED FROM ONE DEVELOPEMENT
AREA TO ANOTHER. SEE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SECTION 10.1.1
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
USE
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
ALLOWABLE STORIES
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-2, S-2, A-3, B, U
TYPE III-A WOOD FRAME, TYPE I-A
NPFA 13 PER SECTION 903.3.1.1
5 STORIES WOOD CONSTRUCTION
E
KATELLA AVE
GENE AUTRY WAY STATE COLLEGE BLVD575
2
A-TOWN SITE
ANGEL STADIUM OF ANAHEIM
ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
INTERMODAL CENTER (ARTIC)
SANTA ANA RIVER
VICINITY MAP
1
3
1
4
2
3
4
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A0.1PROJECT DATA & NOTES
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
PARKING REQUIRED - RESIDENTIAL
Bedroom Type Count
Parking Required
Per Unit
Parking Required
(Totals)
0 STUDIO 89 1.25 111
1 BEDROOM 118 1.5 177
2 BEDROOM 50 2 100
257 388
PARKING PROVIDED - RESIDENTIAL
Type Percent of Total Count
Residential - 19'-0" x 8'-6" 78% 288
Residential Accessible - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 2% 7
Residential Accessible VAN - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 0% 1
Residential Future EV - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 19% 71
Residential Future EV Accessible - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 1%2
Residential Future EV Accessible Van - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 0% 1
370
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT INFO
UNIT COUNT
Bedroom Type Unit Type Count
Unit Area
(sf)
Net Rentable
(sf)
0 STUDIO UNIT_E0-1 56 551 SF 30,856 SF
0 STUDIO UNIT_E0-2 33 596 SF 19,668 SF
89 50,524 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT_E1-1 44 663 SF 29,172 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT_E1-2 15 741 SF 11,115 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT_E1-C1 55 697 SF 38,335 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT_E2-1.1 1 668 SF 668 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT_E2-2.1 3 695 SF 2,085 SF
118 81,375 SF
2 BEDROOM UNIT_E2-1 25 918 SF 22,950 SF
2 BEDROOM UNIT_E2-2 25 962 SF 24,050 SF
50 47,000 SF
TOTAL 257 178,899 SF
0'200' 400' 800'
INCLUDED IN PROVIDED PARKING:
• 10% OF PARKING SPACES TO BE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES CAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING FUTURE EVSE PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 4.106.4.1.1
• 1 IN 25 FUTURE EV CHARGING SPACES SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE (8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE)
• ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED AT A MINIMUM RATE PER 2019 CBC.11A &
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS.
STORAGE
Storage Type Level Count
STORAGE (BUILDING) LEVEL 1 60
60
STORAGE (IN-UNIT) LEVEL 1 28
STORAGE (IN-UNIT) LEVEL 2 39
STORAGE (IN-UNIT) LEVEL 3 44
STORAGE (IN-UNIT) LEVEL 4 44
STORAGE (IN-UNIT) LEVEL 5 42
197
TOTAL 257
ALL STORAGE PROVIDED (IN UNIT OR CENTRALLY LOCATED IN BUILDING) HAS A MINIMUM SIZE OF
100 CUBIC FEET CAPACITY PER ZONING REQUIREMENT. (AMC 18.20.130.020)
Guest - 19'-0" x 8'-6"81% 21
Guest Accessible - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 4% 1
Guest Accessible Van - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 4% 1
Guest Future EV - 19'-0" x 9'-0" 8% 2
Guest Future EV Accessible Van - 19'-0" x 12'-0" 4% 1
26
396TOTAL
1. ACCESS TO ALL PUBLIC AREAS IN AND AROUND THE BUILDING WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT.
2. THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.
GENERAL NOTES
NOTE: NET RENTABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE CITY REQUIRED STORAGE OR UNIT SIZE VARIATION DUE
TO FACADE MOVEMENT
239149.00EX. SIDEWALKEX. RIGHT OF WAYEX. CURBEX. SEWER LINEEXISTING RETAINING WALL(154.67 TRW)25'25'18'R=15'R=15'
R =1 5 'R=15'TEMPORARY FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND
UNTIL PRIVATE DRIVE CONNECTION IS
CONSTRUCTED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT
AREA F CONNECTING TO PARK STREET.STOPSLOPE MAINTENANCE BY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
1 5 4 .0
F SPPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTTPPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTT
LEASING
AMENITY
POOL
BATH/EQMT
LOBBY
UP
ELEC 1 ELEC 2
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
TRASH
USPS/DELIVERY/MOVE-IN
5%
STORAGE
MAIL
EVA / TRASH PICK-UP
TRASH STAGING
& PICK-UP
AMENITY
STORAGE
ELEC 3
ELEC 4
GARAGE
DEVELOPMENT
AREA D
DEVELOPMENT
AREA F
ARCO
GAS
STATION
KATELLA AVE.SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY
STATE COLLEGE BLVD.
TRANSFORMER 1
TRANSFORMER 2
TRANSFORMER 3TRANSFORMER 4
PARKING
ENTRY
METRO ST.PARK ST.SETBACK
5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"AMENITY
ROW TO CL31'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK
5'-0"
STREET CL
ROW TO CURB12'-0"ROW TO CL60'-0"COMPOST W ASTE
STAGING & PICK-UP
BULK ITEM
TRASH
STORAGE
MAINTENANCE ELEC ROW TO PL30'-0"SETBACK16'-0"26'-0"
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
VEHICULAR ENTRY
FIRE ACCESS/EGRESS STAIR
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A1.0ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0'40'80'160'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.1PERSPECTIVE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.2PERSPECTIVE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.3PERSPECTIVE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
153.5'
153' -6"7'-3"8'-0"9'-1"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"1'-6"1
A2.7
1
A2.7
T.O.PLATE
212' -9"
T.O.PARAPET
220' -0"
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"BUILDING HEIGHT66'-6"LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PARAPET (MAIN BUILDING)
210' -7"5'-10"9'-1"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"BUILDING HEIGHT66'-0"A2.4
3
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
1
2
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.4BUILDING ELEVATIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0' 10' 20' 40'
1" = 20'-0"1WEST ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION3/8" = 1'-0"3GARAGE OPENING DETAIL
LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PARAPET (MAIN BUILDING)
210' -7"5'-10"9'-1"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"BUILDING HEIGHT65'-6"LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PARAPET (MAIN BUILDING)
210' -7"10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 9'-1" 5'-10"BUILDING HEIGHT65'-6"2
1
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.5BUILDING ELEVATIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1" = 20'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"1EAST ELEVATION
0' 10' 20' 40'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.6COLOR & MATERIAL
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
TRESPA METEON EXTERIOR
MATALLICS (M21.8.1 GRAPHITE GREY SATIN)
FINISH SPEC: CENTRIA
9914 MIDNIGHT BRONZE
LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"5'-10"9'-1"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"GUEST & LEASING PARKING AMENITY
RESIDENTIAL PARKINGPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPOOL
FF 155'FG 154'BUILDING HEIGHT58'-10"ELEVATOR
PENTHOUSE
BEYOND
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PARAPET (MAIN BUILDING)
210' -7"
FG 154'*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE
AREA OR REQUIRED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES. AT
ACCESSIBLE STALLS & DRIVE AISLES, 8'-2" CLEARANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. *8'-2"7'-4"UNIT UNIT
8'-2"8'-2"8'-2"8'-2"LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 1
155' -0"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 2
165' -2"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 3
175' -4"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 4
185' -6"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
LEVEL 5
195' -8"
153.5'
153' -6"
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
7'-3"8'-0"9'-1"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"10'-2"T.O.PLATE
212' -9"
T.O.PARAPET
220' -0"
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PLATE (MAIN BUILDING)
204' -9"
T.O.PARAPET (MAIN BUILDING)
210' -7"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDING HEIGHT66'-6"STATE COLLEGE
BLVD.BUILDING HEIGHT58'-4"GUEST & LEASING PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
AMENITY
UNIT
ELEVATOR
PENTHOUSE
BEYOND
LOBBY
FF 155'FG 154.5'FF 153.5' FG 153.5'
*DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE
AREA OR REQUIRED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING STRUCTURES. AT
ACCESSIBLE STALLS & DRIVE AISLES, 8'-2" CLEARANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. *8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"*8'-2"UNIT
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
1
2 2
1
33
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
GUEST & LEASING PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKINGPROPERTY LINEELEVATOR
PENTHOUSE
BEYOND
FG 154'
SIDEWALK
PARKWAY WEST BOUND
KATELLA AVE.
MEDIAN EAST BOUND
KATELLA AVE.
PARKWAY
SIDEWALK ARCO GAS STATION
STADIUM
LOFTS LIGHT POLE7'-0"LIGHT POLE11'-0"LIGHT POLE15'-0"P E D E S T R I A N L I N E O F S I G H T F R O M
N O R T H S I D E W A L K A L O N G K A T E L L A A V E .
±FG 152'52'-8"FF 153'-5"
FF 167'-1"
FF 177'-3"
FF 187'-5"
FF 197'-7"
FF 205'-10"
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A2.7BUILDING SECTIONS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1" = 20'-0"2BUILDING SECTION N-S
0' 10' 20' 40'
1" = 20'-0"1CONCEPT SECTION E-W
1" = 20'-0"3GARAGE LIGHT POLE LINE OF SIGHT FROM KATELLA AVE
R=15'R=15'
R =1 5 'R=15'1 5 4 .0
F S151.2150.7PPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTTPPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTT2114 SF
LEASING
2600 SF
AMENITY
POOL
BATH/EQMT
LOBBY
UP
583 SF
ELEC 1 2-STORYBREEZEWAYDN
621 SF
ELEC 2 EVAFG 154'
TRASH
USPS / LOADING /
DELIVERIES / MOVE-IN
5%
STORAGE
433 SF
MAIL
5%BULK ITEM
TRASH STORAGE
EVA / TRASH PICK-UP
MEC./
AIR
SHAFT
MAINTENANCE
TRASH STAGING
& PICK-UP
3190 SF
AMENITY
ELEC
STORAGE
502 SF
ELEC 3
T.O. RETAINING WALL 155.3FF
155'
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
247 SF
ELEC 4
A2.4
1
GARAGE
2-STORY VOLUME
2-STORY VOLUME
1-STORY
SEE LANDSCAPE
DRAWINGS
1454 SF
AMENITY
2-STORY
VOLUME
LOBBY
PARCEL
ROOM
2-STORY
BREEZEWAY
SIGNAGEFG 154'
MPOE
6'-0"
A2.4
2
A2.5
1
A2.5
2
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
DN5%10%
SPEED
RAMP
UP
DN
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
STORAGE
GATE
RESIDENT ENTRYVEHICLE EXIT32 STORAGES
11 STORAGES
17 STORAGES
FF
155'-4"5%FF 155'
FF 155'
FF 155'
FF 155'
FF 155'
FF 155'
11 STALLS
10 STALLS 1 STALLS
3 STALLS
4 STALLS
5 STALLS3 STALLS4 STALLS
3 STALLS
FF
152'-7"39'-0"28'-1"48'-4"
COMPOST WASTE
STAGING & PICK-UP
FG 154'
UP< 5%TYP.25'-0"FF 152'UP5%UP 5%
FG 154'
FF 153.5'
FF 153.5'FF 153.5'
FF 153.5'FF 153'
STRIPED FOR
TURNAROUND
15%
SPEED
RAMP
12'-0"1 STALLPET WASH
FF 155'
IDF
IDF
IDF
MEP
IDF
FF 153.5'
STRIPED
FOR
TURN-
AROUND
FF 153'-5"39'-0"10'-0"10'-9"10'-10"
10'-0"10'-9"10'-8"10'-0"
A3.5
1
12'-0" 5'-0"
12'-0" 5'-0"8'-0" 9'-0"
5'-0" 12'-0"
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-
FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL
NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING
STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM
8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR
ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET
A3.5.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE,
SEE PARKING TABLES ON A0.1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.0BUILDING PLAN - LVL 1
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0' 10' 20' 40'
UP
DN
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
A2.4
1
OPEN
TO
AMENITY
BELOW
OPEN
TO
LEASING
BELOW
OPEN
TO
AMENITY
BELOW
OPEN TO
BREEZEWAY
BELOW
A2.4
2
A2.5
1
A2.5
2
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
10%
SPEED
RAMP
5%5%
5%5%DN
OPEN TO
BREEZEWAY
BELOW
OPEN TO
LOBBY
BELOW
DN
MEC./
AIR SHAFT
IDF
13 STALLS
15 STALLS
6 STALLS
5 STALLS
9 STALLS8 STALLS6 STALLS
3 STALLS
FF 165'-2"FF 167'-1"
FF 169'FF 165'-2"TYP.25'-0"38'-4"39'-0"28'-1" 12'-0" 24'-6" 12'-0" 51'-5"
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
15%
SPEED
RAMP
10%
SPEED
RAMP
IDF
IDF
IDF
IDF12'-8"10'-8"11'-2"10'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0"
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-
FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL
NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING
STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM
8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR
ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET
A3.5.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE,
SEE PARKING TABLES ON A0.1.
0' 10' 20' 40'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.1BUILDING PLAN - LVL 2
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
UP
DN
A2.4
140'-6" 131'-0"85'-0"LOUNGE
A2.4
2
A2.5
1
A2.5
2
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
5%
5%5%5%
422'-0"
63'-6" 73'-0" 44'-0"204'-0"256'-6"121'-6"74'-0"45'-0"MEC./
AIR SHAFT
IDF
417'-6"153'-6"FF 175'-4"FF 177'-3"
FF 179'-2"
FF 175'-4"TYP.25'-0"38'-4"39'-0"128'-0"
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
91'-6"
151'-0" 15'-6" 64'-0"187'-0"
DN
IDF
IDF
IDF
IDF
13 STALLS
16 STALLS
18 STALLS
7 STALLS8 STALLS13 STALLS
11'-4"12'-8"10'-8"11'-2"8'-0"9'-0"8'-0" 9'-0"
12'-0" 5'-0"
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
2'-0"
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-
FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL
NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING
STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM
8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR
ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET
A3.5.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE,
SEE PARKING TABLES ON A0.1.
0' 10' 20' 40'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.2BUILDING PLAN - LVL 3
(LVL 4 SIM.)20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
UP
DN
A2.4
1
ROOF
BELOW
ROOF
BELOW
A2.4
2
A2.5
1
A2.5
2
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
ROOF
BELOW
ROOF
BELOW
5%
5%5%5%
MEC./
AIR SHAFT
IDF
FF 195'-8"FF 197'-7"
FF 199'-6"FF 195'-8"128'-0"
38'-4"39'-0"TYP.25'-0"PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
DN
IDF
IDF
IDF
IDF
13 STALLS
16 STALLS
18 STALLS
7 STALLS8 STALLS13 STALLS10'-8"12'-8"11'-4"
11'-2"8'-0"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"
8'-0" 9'-0"
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-
FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL
NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING
STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM
8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR
ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET
A3.5.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE,
SEE PARKING TABLES ON A0.1.
0' 10' 20' 40'
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.3BUILDING PLAN - LVL 5
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
2
A2.7
2
A2.7
A2.4
1
A2.4
2
A2.5
2
1
A2.7
1
A2.7
BOILER PAD
BOILER PAD
LOWER
ROOF
LOWER
ROOF
ROOF
ACCESS
STAIR
ROOF
ACCESS
STAIR
GARAGE
HIGHER ROOF
OVER UNITS LOWER
ROOF
LOWER
ROOF
MAIN ROOF
MAIN ROOF
MAIN ROOFMAIN ROOF
DN5%
ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED
AND NOT VISIBLE AT GRADE LEVEL.
13 STALLS
16 STALLS
13 STALLS
9 STALLS10 STALLS
FF 205'-10"
FF 205'-10"TYP.25'-0"27'-6" 10'-0"
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT30'-1"11'-10"
HIGHER ROOF
OVER
ELEV. LOBBY
TO
ELEVATOR
LOBBY
STRIPED
FOR
TURN-
AROUND
3
A2.7
3
A2.7
GARAGE NOTES
1. PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL INCLUDE A SQUEAL-
FREE FLOOR TREATMENT.
2. AT-GRADE DUCTS AND OVERHEAD PIPES SHALL
NOT ENCROACH IN THE PARKING SPACE AREA OR
REQURIED VEHICLES CLEARANCE AREA IN PARKING
STRUCTURES.
3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS HAVE A MINIMUM
8’-2” HEIGHT CLEARANCE AT THE STALL, THE
LOADING ZONE, AND THE ENTIRE VEHICULAR
ROUTE TO AND FROM THE STALL
4. THE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO AND FROM
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL NOT BE
BEHIND ANY OTHER PARKING STALLS.
5. FOR TYPICAL PARKING STALL LAYOUT SEE SHEET
A3.5.
6. FOR PARKING STALL DIMENSION BY STALL TYPE,
SEE PARKING TABLES ON A0.1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.4BUILDING PLAN - ROOF
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0' 10' 20' 40'
R=15'R=15'
UP
ELEC 1
FF 153'
FG 154'
FG 154'
MPOE
GARAGE ENTRY
FOB CONTROLED VEHICULAR GATE
FOR RESIDENTS ONLY
ENTRYVEHICLE EXIT5%2-LANE GARGAE ACCESS
CALL BOX - GUESTS OR FUTURE TENANTS
PARKING PROVIDED IN FRONT OF SECURITY
GATE ON THIS LEVEL.
SIGNAGE TO BE PROVIDED TO DIRECT
GUEST & RESIDENT ENTRY TRAFFIC.
DESIGN DEFERRED TO COMPREHENSIVE
SIGNAGE PACKAGE.
METRO ST.
BULK ITEM
TRASH
STORAGE
25'-0"8'-11"
DN5%UP5%20'-6"25'-0"FF 152'
FF 152'23'-4"40'-6"STRIPED FOR
TURNAROUND
ENTRYVEHICLE EXIT25'-0"
AMENITY
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYR.O.W
10'-0"10'-9"FF 153'-5"40'-0"3
A2.7
3
A2.7
NOTE:
1. OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN CONFORM TO CITY OF
ANAHEIM ENGINEERING STANDARD DETAILS 470 & 471
2. SEE PARKING TABLE ON SHEET A0.1 FOR SIZE BY
STALL TYPE
TYP.19'-0"TYP.
8'-6" 6"MIN.1'-6"TYP.888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.5DRIVEWAY / RAMP / PARKING
EXHIBIT20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1" = 10'-0"1LEVEL 1 - DRIVEWAY & RAMP
1/8" = 1'-0"2TYPICAL PARKING
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A3.6SHADE & SHADOW STUDY
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0'NOT TO SCALE
DINING
W/D
BATH
6'-11"8'-9" 10'-6"
SLEEPLIVING
W.I.C.
L 3'-10"13'-2 1/2"15'-10 1/2"20'-0"31'-0"27'-0 1/2"14'-4"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
REQ'D STORAGE AREA (MIN. 100 CUFT) FOR THIS UNIT
IS CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE BUILDING ON LEVEL 1.
SLEEP
LIVING
W/D
W.I.C.
KITCHEN
L12'-6"11'-7"6'-9"7'-2 1/2"24'-0"
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
25'-0"12'-2"11'-1"27'-6"11'-9"888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.0UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT - E0-1
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT - E0-2
0' 2' 4' 8'
Count Unit Area
56 551 SF
Count Unit Area
33 596 SF
KITCHEN /
DINING
BEDROOM
LIVING
BATH
W/D
W.I.C.
C.C.
L 11'-8"14'-5 1/2"7'-5 1/2"6'-2"12'-1 1/2"
24'-0"12'-6"31'-0"10'-10"27'-0 1/2"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF
C.C.11'-11 1/2"11'-1 1/2"12'-8"
BEDROOMLIVING
KITCHEN /
DINING
W/D
W.I.C.
BATH
L
1
6'-6"7'-2"11'-8"34'-0"
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF24'-0"25'-10"9'-8 1/2"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
3'-1"7'-5 1/2"6'-2"15'-5 1/2"15'-1 1/2"11'-7"KITCHEN
BEDROOM
LIVING
BATH
W/D
W.I.C.
C.C.
L
DINING12'-6"31'-0"27'-5"
10'-10"27'-7 1/2"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.1UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT - E1-1
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT - E1-C1
1/4" = 1'-0"3UNIT - E1-2
0' 2' 4' 8'
Count Unit Area
44 663 SF
Count Unit Area
15 741 SF
Count Unit Area
55 697 SF
BATH
BEDROOM
11'-2"11'-6"
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
L L
BEDROOM
BATH
W/D
C.C.
KITCHEN /
DINING
LIVING
6'-9"4'-4"6'-9"36'-0"
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSF10'-4"12'-0"7'-5 1/2"12'-0"28'-0"23'-2 1/2"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
W.I.C.
L
BEDROOM
BATH
W/D
C.C.
KITCHEN /
DINING
LIVING
11'-2"6'-9"4'-4"26'-4"
14'-2 1/2"23'-2 1/2"10'-4"28'-0"REFER TO BUILDING PLAN FOR
EXTERIOR WALL/ DECK/ DOOR/
WINDOW LOCATIONS & SIZES
OUTLINE OF UNIT E2-1 BELOWREQ'D STORAGE AREA (MIN. 100 CUFT) FOR THIS UNIT
IS CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE BUILDING ON LEVEL 1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.2UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT - E2-1
0' 2' 4' 8'
Unit Type Count Unit Area
E2-1 25 918 SF
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT - E2-1.1
Unit Type Count Unit Area
E2-1.1 1 668 SF
11'-0"11'-4 1/2"6'-7 1/2"26'-10 1/2"4'-6"9'-4 1/2"4'-0"9'-0"
26'-0"7'-6"
BEDROOM
BATH
W/D
C.C.
W.I.C.
LIVING
KITCHEN /
DINING
BATH
BEDROOM12'-4 1/2"12'-0"
11'-6"11'-6"33'-6"33'-6"
REFER TO BUILDING PLAN
FOR EXTERIOR WALL/
DECK/ DOOR/ WINDOW
LOCATIONS & SIZES
REQ'D STORAGE AREA
(MIN. 100 CUFT).
NOT INCLUDED IN
UNIT NSFW/D
C.C.
LIVING
KITCHEN /
DINING
BATH
BEDROOM OUTLINE OF UNIT E2-2 ABOVEREFER TO BUILDING PLAN
FOR EXTERIOR WALL/
DECK/ DOOR/ WINDOW
LOCATIONS & SIZES
33'-6"11'-0"12'-4 1/2"21'-9"
12'-0"
26'-0"
11'-6"10'-11"20'-11 1/2"12'-6 1/2"13'-5 1/2"REQ'D STORAGE AREA (MIN. 100 CUFT) FOR THIS UNIT
IS CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE BUILDING ON LEVEL 1.
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -
PLANNING COMMISSION SET A5.3UNIT PLANS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT - E2-2
1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT - E2-2.1
Unit Type Count Unit Area
E2-2 25 962 SF
Unit Type Count Unit Area
E2-2.1 3 695 SF
0' 2' 4' 8'
Sd
S3
F7 F8
Fi
Fj
C4C2
Cb
Cb.8
Cc
Ce.5
Cf.6
Cg
C7 C9 C11
Cd
C11.2 C13C10.8C10.2C9.5C8.3C5.8C5.4C6 C8
Ce
C5 L2 L3C12
Fb.3
Fa
Fa.6
Fb
Fg
Fh
Fl
Fk
Fn.3
Fm
Fn
Fc
L1.3 L2.4 L3.7L2.8L1
Fk.8
Fl.4
Fj.8
Fj.2
Fl.6
Fm.4
Fm.7
C1.5 C10
Ca
C1
Fo
Sa
Sb
Sc
S1
C12.8
Cf
S2
Sc
Se
Fb.5
XR1
XR2
YR1
XR2
YR1
XR1
C3 C11.43 3/4"6'-1 3/4"11'-5 1/4"7"3'-7 1/2"2'-4"6'-2 1/2"7'-6"11 1/4"4 1/2"8'-4 7/8"7'-4"1'-4 1/8"27'-4 3/8"8'-2 3/4"11'-5 1/4"3'-11 1/4"8'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/4"4'-4 1/4"8'-2 1/2"3'-3"3'-3"3'-3"11'-5 1/2"2'-9 1/2"9 5/8"2'-10 7/8"6'-4 3/4"11'-1 1/4"2'-9 1/2"21'-6 3/8"4'-9 5/8"12'-2"6'-1 1/2"7'-3 1/2"6'-7"8'-1"3'-10"3'-9 7/8"16'-6"6'-9"
F2F2.5 F2.3 F6F5F1F2.7 F4F3F1.2 F2.8
11 3/4"8'-9 5/8"2'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/8"5'-1 7/8"8'-1 1/4"2'-3 5/8"6'-5 1/8"3'-10"
Lc
La
Lb
1'-1 1/8"19'-2 1/4"1'-5 7/8"9'-8 3/8"4'-2 3/4"3'-7 5/8"1'-3 1/8"5'-2 3/8"6'-11 3/4"2 7/8"11'-7 1/8"1'-7 1/4"2'-11 7/8"4'-4"3'-6 1/8"4'-11 7/8"1'-6 3/8"5'-3 3/4"2'-2 1/2"10'-4"9'-6 1/2"6'-6"7'-11 7/8"7'-11 1/4"16'-11 1/8"2'-0 3/4"9'-2 5/8"11'-5 5/8"12'-0 1/2"38'-2 1/8"19'-0 1/8"14'-2 7/8"15'-6 3/8"156'-5 23/32"32'-8 3/4"9'-3 1/2"
E1 E2
Ea
34'-5"18'-7"18'-11 3/4"IDF
3SS
SSSSIDF
5
IDF
6
CORR
OSA 2
CORR
OSA 3
CORR
OSA 4
ELEV
1
ELEV
2
RES
STOR
2
CORR
OSA 1
DN33'-0 1/4"
(4.5% SLOPE - 1'-6" RISE)
155.00 FF153.50 FF
RESIDENT
STORAGE 3
[26]
RESIDENT
STORAGE 2
[14]
CO-WORKING
ELEC RM
1 ELEC RM
2
LEASING
ELEC RM
3
BREEZEWAY 2
ELEV
CONTROL
2
ELEC RM
4
FITNESS
IDF 2
153.50 FF153.50 FF
MENS
POOL RR
WOMENS
POOL RR
POOL
EQUIPMENT
S
SSSTAIR
3
BREEZEWAY 1GUEST
EV CHARGING
ONLY
GUESTXXXXXXXXX50KVA INVERTERGDBA1DIST.2000AMPGDBA1MCB2000AMPLCPGHPDPNL
PNL
PNL GDBDDIST.1200AMPGDBDMCB1200AMPPNL
PNL
PNL
GUESTVEHICLETURNAROUNDMOTORCYCLE(VAN)
EV CHARGING
ONLY
XXX
(VAN)GUEST153.50 FF
154.00 FG
154.00 FG
MOTORCYCLE
MOTORCYCLE153.16 FG
(GOLFCART)GOLF CARTSTAIR
1
STAIR
5
STAIR
6
STAIR
4
STAIR
1
STAIR
2
CLUBROOM
STAIR
5
153.50 FF
LOBBY
PARKING GARAGE ENTRY
FITNESS
BULK ITEM
TRASH STORAGE
152.00 FF
FD
FD
DS
DS
152.00 FF
FD
FD
154.00 FF
154.00 FF
155.00 FF
155.00 FF
RAMP DN(5.1% SLOPE)FD
FD
155.00 FF
152.00 FF
152.00 FF
RES
STOR
5
Sd
S3
F7 F8
Fi
Fj
C4C2
Cb
Cb.8
Cc
Ce.5
Cf.6
Cg
C7 C9 C11
Cd
C11.2 C13C10.8C10.2C9.5C8.3C5.8C5.4C6 C8
Ce
C5 L2 L3C12
Fb.3
Fa
Fa.6
Fb
Fg
Fh
Fl
Fk
Fn.3
Fm
Fn
Fc
L1.3 L2.4 L3.7L2.8L1
Fk.8
Fl.4
Fj.8
Fj.2
Fl.6
Fm.4
Fm.7
C1.5 C10
Ca
C1
Fo
Sa
Sb
Sc
S1
C12.8
Cf
S2
Sc
Se
Fb.5
XR1
XR2
YR1
XR2
YR1
XR1
C3 C11.43 3/4"6'-1 3/4"11'-5 1/4"7"3'-7 1/2"2'-4"6'-2 1/2"7'-6"11 1/4"4 1/2"8'-4 7/8"7'-4"1'-4 1/8"27'-4 3/8"8'-2 3/4"11'-5 1/4"3'-11 1/4"8'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/4"4'-4 1/4"8'-2 1/2"3'-3"3'-3"3'-3"11'-5 1/2"2'-9 1/2"9 5/8"2'-10 7/8"6'-4 3/4"11'-1 1/4"2'-9 1/2"21'-6 3/8"4'-9 5/8"12'-2"6'-1 1/2"7'-3 1/2"6'-7"8'-1"3'-10"3'-9 7/8"16'-6"6'-9"
F2F2.5 F2.3 F6F5F1F2.7 F4F3F1.2 F2.8
11 3/4"8'-9 5/8"2'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/8"5'-1 7/8"8'-1 1/4"2'-3 5/8"6'-5 1/8"3'-10"
Lc
La
Lb
1'-1 1/8"19'-2 1/4"1'-5 7/8"9'-8 3/8"4'-2 3/4"3'-7 5/8"1'-3 1/8"5'-2 3/8"6'-11 3/4"2 7/8"11'-7 1/8"1'-7 1/4"2'-11 7/8"4'-4"3'-6 1/8"4'-11 7/8"1'-6 3/8"5'-3 3/4"2'-2 1/2"10'-4"9'-6 1/2"6'-6"7'-11 7/8"7'-11 1/4"16'-11 1/8"2'-0 3/4"9'-2 5/8"11'-5 5/8"12'-0 1/2"38'-2 1/8"19'-0 1/8"14'-2 7/8"15'-6 3/8"156'-5 23/32"32'-8 3/4"9'-3 1/2"
E1 E2
Ea
34'-5"18'-7"18'-11 3/4"FD
FD
FD
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING
COMMISSION SET TR0.1SITE PLAN LEVEL 1
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK E
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH
COLLECTION
ROOM.
SEE PAGE TR1.0
RESIDENTIAL
TRASH STAGING
PATH OF TRAVEL
TRASH STAGING
AREA. SEE
DETAILS ON PAGE
TR0.3
404FT RUN FROM
FURTHEST
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
TO TRASH ROOM
3FT
EXIT
DOOR W
R
Fi
Fj
Fb.3
Fa
Fa.6
Fb
Fg
Fh
Fl
Fk
Fn.3
Fm
Fn
Fc
Fk.8
Fl.4
Fj.8
Fj.2
Fl.6
Fm.4
Fm.7
Fb.5
4'-9 5/8"12'-2"6'-1 1/2"7'-3 1/2"6'-7"8'-1"3'-10"3'-9 7/8"16'-6"6'-9"11 3/4"8'-9 5/8"2'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/8"5'-1 7/8"8'-1 1/4"2'-3 5/8"6'-5 1/8"3'-10"
Lc
La
Lb
1'-1 1/8"19'-2 1/4"1'-5 7/8"9'-8 3/8"4'-2 3/4"3'-7 5/8"1'-3 1/8"5'-2 3/8"6'-11 3/4"2 7/8"11'-7 1/8"1'-7 1/4"2'-11 7/8"4'-4"3'-6 1/8"4'-11 7/8"1'-6 3/8"5'-3 3/4"2'-2 1/2"10'-4"9'-6 1/2"6'-6"7'-11 7/8"7'-11 1/4"34'-5"18'-7"18'-11 3/4"Fi
Fj
Fb.3
Fa
Fa.6
Fb
Fg
Fh
Fl
Fk
Fn.3
Fm
Fn
Fc
Fk.8
Fl.4
Fj.8
Fj.2
Fl.6
Fm.4
Fm.7
Fb.5
4'-9 5/8"12'-2"6'-1 1/2"7'-3 1/2"6'-7"8'-1"3'-10"3'-9 7/8"16'-6"6'-9"11 3/4"8'-9 5/8"2'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/8"5'-1 7/8"8'-1 1/4"2'-3 5/8"6'-5 1/8"3'-10"
Lc
La
Lb
1'-1 1/8"19'-2 1/4"1'-5 7/8"9'-8 3/8"4'-2 3/4"3'-7 5/8"1'-3 1/8"5'-2 3/8"6'-11 3/4"2 7/8"11'-7 1/8"1'-7 1/4"2'-11 7/8"4'-4"3'-6 1/8"4'-11 7/8"1'-6 3/8"5'-3 3/4"2'-2 1/2"10'-4"9'-6 1/2"6'-6"7'-11 7/8"7'-11 1/4"34'-5"18'-7"18'-11 3/4"IDF
3SS
SSSSIDF
5
IDF
6
CORR
OSA 2
CORR
OSA 3
CORR
OSA 4
ELEV
1
ELEV
2
RES
STOR
2
CORR
OSA 1 UP18UP18DN18UP18
DN18
FIXED WDWFIXED WDW
IDF
1
IDF
4
IDF
2 SSSERRCS
CORRIDOR '1'
LOBBY 1
ELEC
CHASE 1
ELEC
CHASE 3
ELEC
CLOSET 2
ELEC
CLOSET 3
Sd
S3
F7 F8
Fi
Fj
C4C2
Cb
Cb.8
Cc
Ce.5
Cf.6
Cg
C7 C9 C11
Cd
C11.2 C13C10.8C10.2C9.5C8.3C5.8C5.4C6 C8
Ce
C5 L2 L3C12
Fb.3
Fa
Fa.6
Fb
Fg
Fh
Fl
Fk
Fn.3
Fm
Fn
Fc
L1.3 L2.4 L3.7L2.8L1
Fk.8
Fl.4
Fj.8
Fj.2
Fl.6
Fm.4
Fm.7
C1.5 C10
Ca
C1
Fo
Sa
Sb
Sc
S1
C12.8
Cf
S2
Sc
Se
Fb.5
XR1
XR2
YR1
XR2
YR1
XR1
C3 C11.43 3/4"6'-1 3/4"11'-5 1/4"7"3'-7 1/2"2'-4"6'-2 1/2"7'-6"11 1/4"4 1/2"8'-4 7/8"7'-4"1'-4 1/8"27'-4 3/8"8'-2 3/4"11'-5 1/4"3'-11 1/4"8'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/4"4'-4 1/4"8'-2 1/2"3'-3"3'-3"3'-3"11'-5 1/2"2'-9 1/2"9 5/8"2'-10 7/8"6'-4 3/4"11'-1 1/4"2'-9 1/2"21'-6 3/8"4'-9 5/8"12'-2"6'-1 1/2"7'-3 1/2"6'-7"8'-1"3'-10"3'-9 7/8"16'-6"6'-9"
F2F2.5 F2.3 F6F5F1F2.7 F4F3F1.2 F2.8
11 3/4"8'-9 5/8"2'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2"2'-1 3/8"5'-1 7/8"8'-1 1/4"2'-3 5/8"6'-5 1/8"3'-10"
Lc
La
Lb
1'-1 1/8"19'-2 1/4"1'-5 7/8"9'-8 3/8"4'-2 3/4"3'-7 5/8"1'-3 1/8"5'-2 3/8"6'-11 3/4"2 7/8"11'-7 1/8"1'-7 1/4"2'-11 7/8"4'-4"3'-6 1/8"4'-11 7/8"1'-6 3/8"5'-3 3/4"2'-2 1/2"10'-4"9'-6 1/2"6'-6"7'-11 7/8"7'-11 1/4"16'-11 1/8"2'-0 3/4"9'-2 5/8"11'-5 5/8"12'-0 1/2"38'-2 1/8"19'-0 1/8"14'-2 7/8"15'-6 3/8"156'-5 23/32"32'-8 3/4"9'-3 1/2"
E1 E2
Ea
34'-5"18'-7"18'-11 3/4"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
(VAN)XXXSTAIR
1
STAIR
5
STAIR
6
(FUTURE
EV CHARGING)
XXX
(FUTURE
EV CHARGING)
XXX
STAIR
1
STAIR
3
STAIR
4
STAIR
5
165.19 FF
DS
DS
UP18
DN18
STAIR
2BREEZEWAY 1
FITNESS
CLUBROOM
FITNESS
ELEC
CLOSET
1
STORAGE
1
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING
COMMISSION SET TR0.2SITE PLAN UPPER FLOORS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK E
UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL
TRASH VESTIBULE.
SEE PAGE TR0.2
443FT RUN FROM
FURTHEST
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
TO TRASH ROOM
12/23/2021
FRONT LOAD
PICK UP
VEHICLE
HEIL34
ATTEMPATTEMP
35
f
t
F
r
o
n
t
E
n
d
L
o
a
d
e
r
35
f
t
F
r
o
n
t
E
n
d
L
o
a
d
e
r
IDF
3
SSS
CORR
OSA 2
ELEV
1
CORR
OSA 1
RAMP DN
30'-0"
(5% SLOPE - 1'-6" RISE)
155.00 FF153.50 FF
ELEC RM
2LEASING
FITNESS
IDF 2
153.50 FF SSSTAIR
3
BREEZEWAY 1
STAIR
2
CLUBROOM
153.50 FF
LOBBY
FITNESS
DS
DS
154.00 FF
155.00 FF
GUEST GUEST(VAN)GUEST153.50 FF (GOLFCART)3
5
f
t
S
i
d
e
L
o
a
d
e
r
35ft Side Loader
IDF
3
SSS
CORR
OSA 2
ELEV
1
CORR
OSA 1
RAMP DN
30'-0"
(5% SLOPE - 1'-6" RISE)
155.00 FF153.50 FF
ELEC RM
2LEASING
FITNESS
IDF 2
153.50 FF SSSTAIR
3
BREEZEWAY 1
STAIR
2
CLUBROOM
153.50 FF
LOBBY
FITNESS
DS
DS
155.00 FF
GUEST
EV CHARGING
ONLY
GUEST1200AMP1200AMPPNL
PNL
PNL
GUEST(VAN)GUEST153.50 FF (GOLFCART)888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING
COMMISSION SET TR0.3TURN STUDIES OF SOLID
WASTE COLLECTIONS20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK E
TURN STUDY OF WASTE & RECYCLE COLLECTION
WASTE 3CY COMPACTED
RECYCLE 3CY COMPACTED
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION SCHEDULE / WK
M T W T F SERVICE S SU
4
0
COMPOST 64GAL
4
TOTAL 4
10
0 0400
TURN STUDY OF COMPOST COLLECTION
HAULER TO PULL
BINS OUT AND
SERVICE AS
NEEDED. (4) BINS
MAX ON SINGLE
DAY.
SIDE LOAD TRUCK TO
PERFORM 3 POINT TURN
AND POSITION ITSELF
TO LOAD BINS. (10) BINS
MAX ON SINGLE DAY.
HATCHED AREA
CONCRETE
STRESS PAD
RATED 60,000LBS
MAX
(2) 30"Ø CHUTES W/
34"Ø ROUND FLOOR
OPENINGS (TYP).
(2) SELF CLOSING,
15 x 18 BH
AUTOMATIC
OPENING DOOR,
PER CBC 713.13.1.
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM
FOR COMPOST. TO BE
EMPTIED DAILY INTO
TRASH COLLECTION
ROOM COMPOST
CONTAINER.
3CY WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
AIR COMPRESSOR
POWER PACK (TYP)
CHUTE MASTER
CONTROL
DISCONNECTS (TYP)
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP)
ODOR
CONTROL
HOT/COLD
HOSE BIB
111 4"H x 6"W
CURB (TYP.)F.D
WASTE
CADDY
(2) A-500 COMPACTORS
10'-0" ROLL-UP DOORB-B
-
RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM FOR COMPOST.
TO BE EMPTIED DAILY INTO TRASH
COLLECTION ROOM COMPOST
CONTAINER.
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
SECTION A-A
RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
UPPER FLOORS LEVELS 02-05
SHEET NOTES:
RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION ROOM
1.TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART OF 2HR FIRE-RATED TRASH CHUTE SHAFT -
RESTRICTED ACCESS.
2.FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO
HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER
COMPACTOR.
3.WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS
FRP OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT, 8'-0" AFF.
4.INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 11 14"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL
NON-CONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUND THE
COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PACKS. STEEL DIAMOND TREAD PLATE
ALONG WALL WHERE INDICATED FOR WALL PROTECTION.
5.10'-0" ROLL UP DOOR AND 3FT EXIT DOOR.
6.ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2019 CBC.
7.(2) 30"Ø GRAVITY CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING.
PROVIDE 3CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING.
PROVIDE 3CY SPARE CONTAINERS FOR WASTE & RECYCLING. CHUTES SHALL
TERMINATE AT 5'-9" AFF.
8.PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED . EACH POWER
PACK IS 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS 60" AFF.
9.MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS
AND WASHING CHUTES. REQUIRES 120V 15A DEDICATED SERVICE.
10.AC: 2HP CHUTE AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE FLOOR-MOUNTED. REQUIRES
120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
11.OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. REQUIRES 120V
15A SERVICE OUTLET.
12.HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.
13.CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: TYPE-A, HORIZONTALLY INSULATED SLIDING-STEEL
DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165° F FUSIBLE LINK.
14.(1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR STAFF
MAINTENANCE PURPOSE.
15.WASTE CADDY FOR MOVING CONTAINERS. 10,000LBS CAPACITY, 3MPH MAX
SPEED. BATTERY POWERED, REQUIRES 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET.
CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: LEVELS 02 THROUGH 05
16.CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1HR FIRE-RATED WITH 1HR FIRE-RATED
DOOR; 5'-0" MIN REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS.
PROVIDE (2) SELF CLOSING, 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, ELECTRICALLY
INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS TO DISPOSE TRASH AND
RECYCLING INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 713.13.1. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS
SUPPLIED BY MCP. SEE DETAIL 1T2.0.
17.CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED.
FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED
ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO
PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES (BY OTHERS).
18.PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED
FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL FLOOR
SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE
DETAIL 9/T2.0 FOR ANCHORING AND MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD
ASSEMBLY. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB
AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR DESIGN SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING OR
SPECIFICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING NARRATIVES,
DRAWINGS, OR DIAGRAMS, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL
NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS OR DESIGNS SUITABLE FOR
CONSTRUCTION.
2.OMISSIONS FROM DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR THE INACCURATE
DESCRIPTION OF DETAILS OF WORK, WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH
ARE CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR
FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATELY DESCRIBED DETAILS
OF THE WORK. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AS IF FULLY AND CORRECTLY
SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR
TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED
IMMEDIATELY OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND ANY DISCREPANCIES
OR INCONSISTENCIES.
SECTION B-B
WASTE RECYCLING
(2) 30"Ø
GALVANEAL
CHUTE
TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
APOLLO MODEL A500
COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL
BIN NOT SHOWN FOR
CLARITY
W
R
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
RECYCLING
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
3CY SPARE
WASTE
COMPACTOR
CONTAINER
WASTE 3CY COMPACTED
RECYCLE 3CY COMPACTED
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION SCHEDULE / WK
M T W T F SERVICE S SU
4
0
COMPOST 64GAL
4
TOTAL 4
10
0 0400
3CY TOWABLE
CONTAINER
TRASH ROOM LEVEL 1
F.F. +0'-0"
LEVEL 2
F.F. +10'-8"
CHUTE DISCHARGE
DOOR, SEE NOTE 14
APOLLO MODEL A500
COMPACTOR, (2) TOTAL
18x18 SH AUTOMATIC
OPENING ELECTRICALLY
INTERLOCKED
THRU-WALL INTAKE
DOOR SEE NOTE 18
30"Ø CHUTE
A-A
-
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
REAR VIEW
FRONT VIEW
O/A
OPENING
12g SIDES &
BOTTOM
8" x 8" x 14"
REINFORCING PLATE
FOR CASTER
BRACKETS. (INSIDE)
DOUBLE CROSS
MEMBERS -LID
REINFORCING
3HD HINGES/ LID
6" HD RIGID
CASTERS
2 LATCHES /LID
14" BAFFLE PLATE
2 LATCHES /LID
3HD HINGES/ LID
STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS
SIDES & BOTTOM............. 12g
LIDS .................... ........ 14g reinforced
LIFTING POCKETS .............. 1
4"
CASTER PADS.................... 4 x 4 1/2
Quick Release
W/ REINFORCED PLATE....... 8" x 8"x 1/4"
REINFORCING CHANNELS.... 10g
CASTERS: 2 x 6 POLYURETHANE
1200 LB CAPACITY MIN.
2 FIXED, 2 KINGPINLESS SWIVEL
LID HINGES: 3 SETS/ LID
LID LATCHES: 2 /LID
KINGPINLESS
SWIVEL HD
CASTERS BOTTOM FORK
LIFT POCKETS
3CY COMPACTOR CONTAINER DETAILS
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
64GAL
COMPOST
CART
WALL
PROTECTION
NOT REQUIRED
AROUND
COLUMNS
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
3FT
EXIT
DOOR
(2) 18x18 SH
AUTOMATIC OPENING
ELECTRICALLY
INTERLOCKED
THRU-WALL INTAKE
DOORS
STRUCTURAL BEAM
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING
COMMISSION SET TR1.0RESIDENTIAL TRASH
COLLECTION ROOM
DETAILS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK E
12g GALV.
SHEET METAL
1" x 1" x 18" ANGLE
STIFFENERS TACK WELDED
TO INSIDE POUR RING
STIFFENERS REMOVED
PRIOR TO CHUTE
INSTALLATION
CHUTE SHAFT AT INTAKE
NO CONTACT BTWN GYP BOARD, FRAMING &
CHUTE. SEAL GAP W/ FLEXIBLE ACOUSTIC
RATED FIRE CAULKING AT PENETRATION
THROUGH WALL & SHAFT, ALL AROUND
FIRE-RATED ACOUSTIC
FLEXIBLE SEALANT
TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT
TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS
(BY OTHERS)
OPP
HAND
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT
TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS (BY
OTHERS)
ANCHOR BOLTS W/ NEOPRENE GROMMETS.
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION
PADS BELOW FRAME
CHUTE AIR AND SOUND ISOLATION FIRE SPRINKLER DETAILS AND CHUTE SANITATION UNIT
AT HIGHEST INTAKE
ROOF LEVEL
NOTES:
1.ATTACHMENT OF ALL BLOCKING, CURBS, AND OTHER ROOF COMPONENTS SHALL BE
DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MANUFACTURER.
2.SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL WORK BY OTHERS.
TYP RESIDENTIAL LEVEL
CL
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
CL
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX
OPENING FROM F.O. WALL
SEE DETAIL 1/-
CONC SLAB & ROOF ASSEMBLY
BY OTHERS (S.S.D.)
ACOUSTIC
SEALANT
VENT CAP W/ CURB FLASHING
BY OTHERS (S.A.D.)
CONC CURB BY
OTHERS (S.A.D.)
CL
5 7
10
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
CONC SLAB WHERE
OCCURS (S.S.D.)
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND
ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME
A36 FLOOR FRAME
SEE PLAN
ASTM A307 3 8"Ø CAST-IN-PLACE ANCHOR BOLT
(2) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY
ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN
ACOUSTICS REPORT
NOTES:
1.REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT LISTED.
ASTM A307 516-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW
W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE
GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY
9
9
-
9
-
NOTES:
1.CHUTE SHAFT SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND
PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED
SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO
OCCUPIED SPACES (BY OTHERS).
2.INTAKE DOOR NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
DISCHARGE LEVEL
WILKINSON TYPE-A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION 90 MINUTE
FIRE-RATED, NARROW GUILLOTINE FIRE DOOR W/ 165° F.
FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION
12
FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING
SECTION VIEWS
FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING
PLAN VIEWS
15
-
TYPE I FLOOR
CONNECTION
SCALE: 112" = 1'-0"
DUCTILE IRON HOUSING
BRIDGE-BEARING QUALITY
NEOPRENE
CHUTE VENT
AT ROOF LEVEL11 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR1
12"Ø HOLES FOR 3 8"Ø
ANCHOR BOLTS (2) TOTAL
PER ASSEMBLY
EDGE OF 34"Ø FLOOR
OPENING: TYPE I FLOOR
EDGE OF 30"Ø CHUTE
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
35°
NOTES:
1.SEE DETAIL 1/- FOR CHUTE INTAKE DOOR INFORMATION.
2.SEE DETAIL 9/- FOR ADDITIONAL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING INFORMATION.
3.ANCHOR FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT ONE END AS SHOWN. OTHER SIDE OF FRAME TO REST
ON TOP OF FLOOR AT INTAKE WALL. SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT OF CHUTE SHAFT.
A36 L112"x112"x14x SQ.
FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME TYP
NOTES:
1.PROVIDE HIGH PRESSURE CHUTE WASHDOWN NOZZLE.
2.FILL SANITATION TANK WITH CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTION. THE SYPHON HOSE SHOULD REACH THE BOTTOM
OF THE SOLUTION CONTAINER. TO FLUSH WITH CLEAR WATER, TURN HANDLE TO THE ON POSITION. FACTORY SETTING OF
THE PROPORTIONING VALVE IS FOR 50-GALLONS PER GALLON OF DISINFECTING SOLUTION.
3.NOTE THAT THE ACCESS DOOR AND D & S UNIT ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE OF CHUTE SHAFT FOR CLARITY. ALL WASHDOWN
EQUIPMENT WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN CHUTE SHAFT, ABOVE THE HIGHEST INTAKE. (1) D & S UNIT PER CHUTE.
4.2019 CBC - 11B-308.2.1 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 44 INCHES
AND NO LOWER THAN 34 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP.
5.2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND
SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE
CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.
6.SUPPLIED BY CHUTE VENDOR - INSTALLED BY PLUMBER.
5
1
2
4 2
6
3
D & S UNIT (NTS)
INSTALLED BEHIND F.O. WALL
15x15 ACCESS DOOR (NTS) INSTALLED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ERECTING WALL
8
9
CL
CONC SLAB OR WOOD
WHERE OCCURS
(S.S.D.)
A36 FLOOR SUPPORT
FRAME, SEE PLAN
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
2HR FIRE-RATED WALL
PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.)
CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM
F.O. WALL, SEE DETAIL 2/- & NOTES 4 & 5 FOR
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
7
SATIN CHROME PULL
HANDLE W/ THUMB LATCH
18x18 SIDE HINGED, AUTOMATIC OPENING
ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED INTAKE DOOR
ROUGH
OPENING
THRU-WALL
RED OPEN
BUTTON
ELEVATION VIEW
(WITHOUT TRIM)PLAN VIEW
ISOMETRIC VIEWELEVATION VIEW
(WITH TRIM: 16 GA. 430 S.S.)
NOTES:
1.INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE.
2.SIDE HINGED DOORS ARE SELF-CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF-LATCHING. UL CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE FIRE-RATED
DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE RISE OF 250° F MAX IN 30 MINUTES.
3.2019 CBC - 11B-308.2.1 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48
INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE PUSH
BUTTON.
4.2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND
AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO
ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR
FLOOR 12
2
NOTES:
1.INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE.
2.BOTTOM HINGED DOORS ARE SELF-CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF-LATCHING. UL
CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE FIRE-RATED DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE
RISE OF 250° F MAX IN 30 MINUTES.
3.MAX OPENING FOR INTAKE DOOR IS 14" FROM FACE OF FINISHED WALL.
4.2019 CBC - 11B-308.2.1 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE
LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES, AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE
FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP.
5.2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE
OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR
TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND
OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.
FLUSHING SPRAY
HEAD BELOW
CHUTE VENT AND
ABOVE TOP CHUTE
INTAKE DOOR
FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT LOWEST
LEVEL OF
BUILDING
*FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT
HIGHEST LEVEL
OF BUILDING
FIRE SPRINKLER
HEAD AT EVERY
OTHER FLOOR
EXAMPLE
BUILDING VERTICAL
SECTION VIEW
*WHEN CALCULATING
NUMBER OF FIRE
SPRINKLER HEADS FOR
EVERY OTHER FLOOR
ALWAYS START WITH
HIGHEST LEVEL
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
-18x18 AIR ASSIST ACCESS DOOR IS
LARGEST DOOR THAT ATM WILL
DESIGN FOR CHUTE INTAKE.
-ATM WILL NEVER DESIGN A 24X24
INTAKE DOOR AS THESE DOOR SIZES
HAVE LED TO FATALITIES.
*SOUND CONSULTANT
TO VERIFY DETAILS
AND UPDATE AS
NECESSARY*
WATER LINE FOR WASHDOWN
RISER IF NOT PROVIDED
ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE (TBD
BY PLUMBING)
SPRINKLER RISER
(TBD BY FIRE SPRINKLER
DESIGNER)
34" CONDUIT FOR AIR
COMPRESSOR
112"Ø HOLES (5) (TYP)
1/2" EMT TO
WASHDOWN SOLENOID
ABOVE HIGHEST
INTAKE. (OPTIONAL)
1" EMT FOR LOW
VOLTAGE POWER
2 LAYERS OF 5 8" SHEET
ROCK RECOMMENDED
FOR 2HR RATED WALL,
OR EQUIVALENT.
MASON BRA-RED
MOUNT (4 REQUIRED)
(TYP)
J-RUNNER / J-STRUT 212JR-23
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING SYSTEM
(CHANNEL AT TOP AND BOTTOM)(BY OTHER)
1" THICK GYPSUM LINER PANEL
(UL TYPE SLXTM) (BY OTHER)
ACOUSTICAL INSULATION. REFER TO
ACOUSTICAL REPORT FOR LOCATION
R-19 MIN. BATT INSULATION PER
SPECIFICATIONS AT CONDITIONED
AREAS.(BY OTHER)
(2)LAYERS 5 8" TYPE "X GWB" OR 5 8" IRE
RATED MOLD AND MOISTURE
RESISTANT GYP BD. @ BATHS &
KITCHENS AND 5 8" DENARMOR @ TUB
LOCATIONS (BY OTHER)
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING
SYSTEM. E STUD-212ES-23( TYP AT
EACH SIDE OF WALL, BY OTHER)
CH METAL STUD (2-1/2") 212CH -23
USG SHAFT WALL FRAMING SYSTEM
(24" O.C TYP) (BY OTHER)
DO NOT INSTALL
FRONT FACING WALL
OF SHAFT UNTIL
CHUTES ARE
INSTALLED
MINIMUM SHAFT DETAILS
WALL ASSEMBLY AS SCHEDULED
WALL PANELS AS SCHEDULED
CONC. CURB AS SCHEDULED
DOWEL, TYP. S.S.D.
J-MOLD
FURRING AS REQUIRED
EPOXY COVE BASE AND EPOXY
FLOOR AS SCHEDULED
CONC. SLAB, S.S.D.
EPOXY TO LAP OVER CURB AND
TO GO UP THE WALL 6".
WALL PROTECTION CONCRETE CURB3
SCALE: 3 8" = 1'-0"
SHEET NOTES: CHUTE DETAILS
1.CHUTE MATERIAL: GALVANIZED OR GALVANEAL 16G STEEL
2.ALL WALL ASSEMBLIES ENCASING THE CHUTE SHAFT SHALL BE 2HR FIRE-RATED.
3.SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION NOT RELATED
TO ATM'S SCOPE OF WORK PER AGREEMENT.
4.POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
MANUFACTURER.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY
CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR
CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM
ARCHITECT.
2.ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN
DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE
CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF
CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR
DISCREPANCIES.
SCALE: 6" = 1'-0"
MASON BRA-RED MOUNT
DUCTILE IRON
HOUSINGRADIAL CLEARANCE (RC)
ASTM A307 5/16" XXX CAP SCREW W/STANDARD WASHER &
NEOPRENE GROMMET , (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY. TYP AT TYPE I
& TYPE III CONSTRUCTION
BRIDGE-BEARING
QUALITY NEOPRENE TYPE I CONNECTION :
12 DIA. HOLES FOR ASTM A307 38" DIA.
POST-INSTALLED ANCHOR BOLTS, (2) TOTAL
PER ASSEMBLY. ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY
W/ RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS
REPORT. PROVIDE SIMPSON SET-XP EPOXY
ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM FOR POST
INSTALLED ANCHORS (ICC-ES-ESR-2508)
3"
2"
3/16"1-3/8"
1-3/8"1-5/8"
1-5/8"4-1/4"
NOTES:
1.ALL HARDWARE PLATED
2.REFER TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED
2-1/2"
2-1/2"
34"
34"
TYPE III CONNECTION :
38" DIA. HOLES FOR SIMPSON 5 PAX #6 x 58"
R200
PANHEAD ZINC SCREW (4) TOTAL PER
ASSEMBLY. ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS
REPORT(ICC-ES-ESR-2236).
PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION
PADS BELOW PLATE. SEE MFG.SPECS. TYP AT
TYPE I AND TYPE III CONSTRUCTION
COMPACTOR & POWER PACK ANCHORING DETAILS4
ZINC PLATED OVERSIZED STEEL
WASHER 0.688" x 2.25
MASON TYPE HG-75
NEOPRENE BUSHING
PROTECTIVE STEEL BUSHING
ALLSTAR ALL18568 -10 REDUCER
34" - 58" x 1.25" LONG
HILTI 58" x 5" ANCHOR BOLT
OR WEDGE ANCHOR
MASON 3/4" THICK NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD, 6" x 4" .
CAPACITY PER LEG: 1400 LB
6"x 4"x 14" LEG
BASE PLATE
W/ 1.062 " HOLE
C6 x 13# CHANNEL
COMPACTOR LEG
ZINC PLATED OVERSIZED STEEL
WASHER
HILTI 1/4" x 3" ANCHOR BOLT
OR WEDGE ANCHOR
MASON 3/4" THICK NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD, 2" x 2" .
CAPACITY PER PAD: 230 LB
MASON TYPE HG-25
NEOPRENE BUSHING
POWER PACK LEG 12g
0.562 " HOLE
CENTERED (4)
C6 x 13# CHANNEL
COMPACTOR LEG
6"x 4"x 14" LEG
BASE PLATE
W/ 1.062 " HOLE
MASON 3/4" NEOPRENE
SUPER "W" WAFFLE PAD,
6" x 4" .
SCALE: 3 8" = 1'-0"
COMPACTOR ANCHORING
POWER PACK ANCHORING
COAT CHUTE W/ SOUNDCOAT DAUBERT V-DAMP
3680 OR EQUIVALENT ; MATCH THICKNESS OF
METAL
15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, NORMALLY
CLOSED LOW-VOLTAGE
ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED,
AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOOR
PLAN VIEW
SATIN CHROME PULL
HANDLE W/ THUMB
LATCH
SECTION VIEW FRONT VIEW
PLAN VIEW
RED OPEN BUTTON
PLUMBING SCHEMATIC LEGEND:
1.3 4"Ø DOMESTIC HOT WATER INLET WITH VACUUM BREAKER. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
2.QUARTER-TURN GATE VALVE (SHUT-OFF AND BYPASS), (2) TOTAL. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
3.PLUMBING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND INSTALLATION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
4.24-VDC SOLENOID VALVE (OPTIONAL). NOT NEEDED FOR MANUAL OPERATION. (NOT USED HERE)
5.D & S UNIT: 1-GALLON CONTAINER, MOUNTING BRACKET, AND PROPORTIONAL VALVE AT REMOTE LOCATION.
(SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR)
6.FLUSHING SPRAY HEAD BELOW CHUTE VENT. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING
SUBCONTRACTOR)
7.FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST INTAKE, LOWEST INTAKE, AND EVERY OTHER FLOOR BETWEEN, TO BE STARTED FROM
HIGHEST INTAKE - CONNECTION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY FIRE
SPRINKLER SUBCONTRACTOR)
8.SIDE-HINGED, UL RATED 90 MINUTE B-LABEL ACCESS DOOR. (SUPPLIED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. INSTALLED BY
FRAMING SUBCONTRACTOR OR GC)
9.SATIN CHROME PULL-HANDLE. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY CHUTE MANUFACTURE)
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING
COMMISSION SET TR2.0CHUTE DETAILS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK E
13'11'11'11'11'13'26'6'6'6'6'LandscapeR/WR/W12'35'35'12'96'120'SidewalkParkwayMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel Lanes16'ResidentialLandscapeSidewalkParkwaySetbackSTATE COLLEGE BLVD.(PUBLIC)SECTION B-B5:14'DeepenedFooting(Height Varies)Proposed62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION A-A13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'METRO DRIVE & PARK DRIVE(PRIVATE)FutureProposedLOT 5TR 17703DEVELOPMENT AREA F(CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CHANGE)0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA EFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C1TECHNICAL SITE PLAN· ··
13'11'11'11'11'13'26'6'6'6'6'LandscapeR/WR/W12'35'35'12'96'120'SidewalkParkwayMedianVehicular Travel LanesVehicular Travel Lanes16'ResidentialLandscapeSidewalkParkwaySetbackSTATE COLLEGE BLVD.(PUBLIC)SECTION B-B5:14'DeepenedFooting(Height Varies)Proposed62'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/WSECTION A-A13'8'31'10'21'Setback3'Possible 3' UseEncroachment(Refer to PTMUOverlay Zone)10'R/W13'8'Parallel ParkingResidentialResidentialLandscape AreaParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesLandscape AreaSidewalkParallel ParkingParkway or Parkway Trees in Tree GratesSidewalk5'5'5'5'METRO DRIVE & PARK DRIVE(PRIVATE)FutureProposedLOT 5TR 17703DEVELOPMENT AREA F(CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CHANGE)0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA EFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C2CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
LOT 5TR 17703DEVELOPMENT AREA F(CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CHANGE)0'15'30'60'20-0183ANAHEIM, CADEVELOPMENT AREA EFINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET12/23/21C3PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'20’40’10’0’
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
Resident Lobby Access
Leasing Office and Lobby Entry Plaza -See
Enlargement Sheet L-7
Signage Low Wall with Seating and
Decorative Lighting (Maximum Height of seating
wall in urban court will be 3’ in the front/street
setback area.)
Resident Amenity Deck With Overhead Trellis
Overhead Trellis with BBQ Counter and Seating
Amenity Deck Privacy Wall
Trash Bin Staging Area
Rec Area - See Enlargement Sheet L-2
Pedestrian Walkway at EVA
EVA
Courtyard with Overhead Trellis and Seating
Courtyard with Overhead Trellis, BBQs and Seating
Courtyard Wall
Enhanced Paving in Parkway at Loading Area
Security Fence
Sight Distance Triangle. No Visual Obstructions
Above 24” in Height
Utility Screening Hedge - See Sheet L-8
Removable Utility Screening Fence per Anaheim
Public Utilities Requirements - See Sheet L-8
Perimeter Wall at North Property Line
Existing Wall at South Property Line
10
5
9
4
8
3
11
6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
7
2
1
LEGEND
STATE COLLEGE BLVD
METRO DRIVE
PARK STREET1 2 34
13
17
17
6 7
11 13
14
10
1618
18 1717
8
9
15
5
20
15
15
19
12
10
Proposed Lot
Line Adjustment
12/23/21 L-1ELANDSCAPE PLAN
OVERALL
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
LEGEND
Raised Deck with Overhead Trellis
Dining Tables
Bar Counter with Seating
Pool Fence
Access Route
Palm Tree
Pool – 1235 sf (+/- 61’x20’)
Spa – 159 sf (+/-14.5’x11’)
Spa Backdrop Wall
Cabana
Artificial Turf with Cabana and Seating
Overhead Trellis with Soft Seating
Overhead Trellis with BBQ Counter and Dining Table
10
5
9
4
13
8
3
11
6
12
7
2
1
8
9
5
5
13
12
11
4
1 10432
6
10
4
4
7
L-2EREC AREA
ENLARGEMENT PLAN888.456.5849ktgy.comArchitecture + PlanningCONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEWA1.0SHEET TITLE20-0183ANAHEIM, CA11/24/20DEVELOPMENT AREA B0'10' 20'40'10’20’5’0’
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
PALM TREES
TREES SHRUBS
GROUNDCOVERVINES / ESPALIERS
CANOPY TREES
VERTICAL ACCENT
VERTICAL EVERGREEN
FLOWERING ACCENT
SPECIMEN TREE
PROPOSED PLANTING LIST
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ / Desert Museum Palo Verde (VL)
Cinnamomum camphora / Camphor Tree (M)
Cupaniopsis anacardiodes / Carrotwood Tree (M)
Magnolia grandiflora / Southern Magnolia (M)
Platanus acerifolia / London Plane Tree (M)
Prosopis alba / Mesquite (L)
Quercus virginiana / Southern Live Oak (M)
Rhus lancea / African Somac (L)
Ulmus parvifolia / Chinese Elm (M)
Phoenix dactylifera / Date Palm (L)
Washingtonia robusta / Mexican Fan Palm (L)
Botanical Name / Common Name (WUCOLS)
(WUCOLS)(WUCOLS)
(WUCOLS)
Botanical Name / Common NameBotanical Name / Common Name
Botanical Name / Common Name
Bambusa sp. / Bamboo (Clumping variaties only) (M)
Tristania conferta / Brisbane Box (M)
Pinus canariensis / Canary Island Pine (L)
Pinus halepensis / Afghan Pine (L)
Pinus pinea / Stone Pine (L)
Bauhinia variegata / Purple Orchid Tree (M)
Jacaranda mimosifolia / Jacaranda (M)
Lagerstroemia indica / Crape Myrtle(M)
Pyrus calleryana / Bradford Pear (M)
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ / Desert Museum Palo Verde (VL)
Erythrina caffra / Coral Tree(L)
Olea europea / Olive (L)
Bougainvillea sp./ NCN (L)
Calliandra haematocephala/ Pink Powder Puff (M)
Pandorea jasminoides/ Bower Vine (M)
Podocarpus gracilor/ Fern Pine (M)
Stephanotis floribunda/ Madagascar Jasmine (M)
Trachelospermum jasminoides/ Star Jasmine (M)
Bougainvillea sp./ NCN (L)
Carex divulsa/ Berkeley Sedge (L)
Carissa m. ‘Green Carpet’/ Natal Plum (L)
Dianella revoluta ‘Little Rev’/ Dianella(L)
Festuca sp./ Fescue (L)
Lantana sp./ Lantana(L)
Lonicera j. ‘Halliana’/ Honeysuckle (L)
Myoporum ‘Pacificum’/ NCN (L)
Rosmarinus o. ‘Prostratus’/ Prostrate Rosemary (L)
Senecio sp./ NCN (M)
Trachelospermum jasminoides/ Star Jasmine (M)
NOTE:
WUCOLS Region 3 (South Coastal)
Agapanthus sp./ Lily of the Nile (M)
Agave sp./ Agave (VL)
Aloe sp./ Aloe (L)
Anigozanthos sp./ Kangaroo Paw (M)
Bougainvillea sp./Bougainvillea (L)
Buxus sp./ Boxwood (M)
Callistemon viminalis ‘Little John’/ Dwarf Callistemon (L)
Carissa macrocarpa ‘Tuttle’/ Dwarf Natal Plum (L)
Ceanothus ‘Frosty Blue’/ California Lilac (L)
Cistus x. purpureus/ Orchid Rockrose (L)
Cordyline sp./ NCN (M/L)
Dianella sp./ Flax Lily (L)
Dietes sp./ Fortnight Lily (L)
Dodonaea v. purpurea/ Purple Hopseed Bush (L)
Euonymus sp./ Euonymus (M)
Festuca mairei/ Atlas Fescue (L)
Hemerocallis sp./ Daylily (M)
Hesperaloe parviflora/ Red Yucca (VL)
Heteromeles arbutifolia/ Toyon (VL)
Laurus nobilis/ Sweet Boy (L)
Lavandula sp./ Lavender (L)
Leucophyllum sp./ Purple Sage (L)
Ligustrum j. ‘Texanum’ / Texas Privet (M)
Lomandra sp./ NCN (M/L)
Muhlenbergia sp/ Deer Grass (M/L)
Nassella tenuissima/ Mexican Feather Grass (L)
Olea europaea ‘Little Ollie’/ Little Ollie Olive (L)
Osmanthus fragrans/ Osmanthus (M)
Philodendron sp./ Philodendron (M)
Phormium sp./ New Zealand Flax (L)
Photinia x. fraseri/ Fraser’s Photinia (M)
Pittosporum sp./ Mock Orange (M)
Podocarpus macrophyllus/ Yew Pine (M)
Rhaphiolepis sp./ Indian Hawthorne (L)
Rosa floribunda ‘Iceberg’/ Iceberg Rose (M)
Rosmarinus sp./ Rosemary (L)
Salvia greggii/Autumn Sage (L)
Westringia sp./ Rosemary (L)
Xylosma congestum/ Shiny Xylosma (L)
Yucca sp./ Yucca (L/VL)
L-3EMASTER PLANT LIST
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'20’40’10’0’
LEGEND
IRRIGATION DATA
Planting Area
Pool / Spa
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION NARRATIVE – PARCEL E – A-TOWN
THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION DESIGN INCLUDES SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WATER
RESOURCES AS FOLLOWS:
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE POTABLE WATER, PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RECYCLED WATER WILL BECOME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE
DESIGNED TO REFLECT RECYCLED WATER USE, UTILIZING APPROPRITATE COLORED PIPING AND
EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION.
THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THE LANDSCAPE IS DIVIDED INTO IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WITH DIFFERING WATER REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON THE PLANT MATERIAL, SLOPE, SOLAR ORIENTATION AND IRRIGATION APPLICATION TYPE.
NO TURF GRASS HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO CONSERVE WATER.
SHRUB AND GROUND COVERS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY IN-LINE
EMITTER DRIP TUBING WITH A UNIFORM SPACING OF EMITTERS AND TUBING
SPACING, INSTALLED ON GRADE BELOW THE MULCH SURFACE. THE DRIP SYSTEMS
ARE SERVED BY VALVES EQUIPPED WITH BASKET FILTERS AND PRESSURE
REGULATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE IRRIGATION: TREES LARGER THAN 24” BOX SIZEWILL RECEIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION FROM SEPARATE VALVE(S) UTILIZING HIGH EFFICIENCY
SQUARE MICRO SPRAY NOZZLES. TREES SMALLER THAT 24” SIZE WILL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL POINT SOURCE EMITTERS FROM THE ADJACENT DRIP TUBING.
THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION WILL INCLUDE A MASTER VALVE AND A FLOW SENSOR TO ALLOW THE
CONTROLLER TO DETECT AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF LATERAL OR PRESSURE
SUPPLY LINE PIPING BREAKS.
PLANTINGS WILL BE GROUPED BY THEIR WATER CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE LATEST WUCOLS IV
CLASSIFICATIONS.
THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WILL INCORPORATE SMART WATER APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY (SWAT)
THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST IRRIGATION RUM TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO INCORPORATE A RAIN SHUT OF DEVICE.
UTILIZING THESE COMPONENTS AND IRRIGATION METHODOLOGY THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED
WATER USE WILL MEET THE ALLOTMENT REQUIREMENT PER THE CURRENT CITY OF ANAHEIM WELO
ORDINANCE.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION NARRATIVE – PARCEL E – A-TOWN
THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION DESIGN INCLUDES SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WATER
RESOURCES AS FOLLOWS:
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE POTABLE WATER, PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RECYCLED WATER WILL BECOME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE
DESIGNED TO REFLECT RECYCLED WATER USE, UTILIZING APPROPRITATE COLORED PIPING AND
EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION.
THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THE LANDSCAPE IS DIVIDED INTO IRRIGATION HYDROZONES WITH DIFFERING WATER REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON THE PLANT MATERIAL, SLOPE, SOLAR ORIENTATION AND IRRIGATION APPLICATION TYPE.
NO TURF GRASS HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO CONSERVE WATER.
SHRUB AND GROUND COVERS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH HIGH EFFICIENCY IN-LINE
EMITTER DRIP TUBING WITH A UNIFORM SPACING OF EMITTERS AND TUBING
SPACING, INSTALLED ON GRADE BELOW THE MULCH SURFACE. THE DRIP SYSTEMS
ARE SERVED BY VALVES EQUIPPED WITH BASKET FILTERS AND PRESSURE
REGULATION.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE IRRIGATION: TREES LARGER THAN 24” BOX SIZEWILL RECEIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION FROM SEPARATE VALVE(S) UTILIZING HIGH EFFICIENCY
SQUARE MICRO SPRAY NOZZLES. TREES SMALLER THAT 24” SIZE WILL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL POINT SOURCE EMITTERS FROM THE ADJACENT DRIP TUBING.
THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION WILL INCLUDE A MASTER VALVE AND A FLOW SENSOR TO ALLOW THE
CONTROLLER TO DETECT AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM IN THE EVENT OF LATERAL OR PRESSURE
SUPPLY LINE PIPING BREAKS.
PLANTINGS WILL BE GROUPED BY THEIR WATER CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE LATEST WUCOLS IV
CLASSIFICATIONS.
THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WILL INCORPORATE SMART WATER APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY (SWAT)
THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST IRRIGATION RUM TIMES BASED ON LOCAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO INCORPORATE A RAIN SHUT OF DEVICE.
UTILIZING THESE COMPONENTS AND IRRIGATION METHODOLOGY THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED
WATER USE WILL MEET THE ALLOTMENT REQUIREMENT PER THE CURRENT CITY OF ANAHEIM WELO
ORDINANCE.
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Total MAWA = (Eto) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA in Sq.ft.)+(0.3xSLA in Sq.ft.)
Hydrozone:Eto:KL LA Sq. Ft.Conversion SLA Sq. Ft.MAWA
Landscaped Area 49.7 0.55 30,743 0.62 0 521,023.14
Estimated Annual Water Use:
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE
Hydrozone:Eto:KL Sq. Ft.Conversion IE EAWU
Low Water Use 49.7 0.2 7,373 0.62 0.8 56,800
Medium Water Use 49.7 0.5 22,120 0.62 0.8 420,739
High Water Use 49.7 0.7 0 0.62 0.0 0
High (Water Feature)49.7 1.0 1,250 0.62 1.0 38,518
Total EAWU:30,743 516,057
Landscape Irrigation Water Use
Project Name: Parcel E - A-Town
Date: July 15, 2021
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
STATE COLLEGE BLVD
METRO DRIVE
L-4EIRRIGATION PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'151.2150.7PPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTTPPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTT888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -3RD SUBMITTAL A#.0REC & LEISURE DIAGRAMS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 09/28/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0'
1" = 50'-0"1LEVEL 1
Area Schedule (BLDG GROSS) Complying Decks
Level Name Area
LEVEL 1 DECK (COMPLYING) 794 SF
LEVEL 2 DECK (COMPLYING) 1704 SF
LEVEL 3 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
LEVEL 4 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
LEVEL 5 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
Grand total: 100 9661 SF
1" = 50'-0"2LEVEL 2 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"3LEVEL 3 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"4LEVEL 4 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"5LEVEL 5 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"6LEVEL MEZZ - REC & LEISURE
Area Schedule (BLDG GROSS) Amenity for Rec & Leisure
Level Name Area
LEVEL 1 10671 SF
LEVEL 3 AMENITY 267 SF
LEVEL 4 AMENITY 267 SF
LEVEL 5 AMENITY 267 SF
Grand total 11474 SF
40’80’20’0’
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
LEGEND
LEVEL 1
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 3
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 2
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL 4
1”=40’-0”
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity
Complying Patios and Balconies (L1-L5)
Outdoor Common Recreation Area
Other Landscaped Rec-Leisure Areas
(Min. 10’ Width)
L-5EREC-LEISURE PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
RECREATION-LEISURE AREA SUMMARY
LEGEND
151.2150.7PPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTTPPPPPPPTTPPPPPPPTTT888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
FINAL SITE PLAN -3RD SUBMITTAL A#.0REC & LEISURE DIAGRAMS
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 09/28/2021
DEVELOPMENT AREA E 0'
1" = 50'-0"1LEVEL 1
Area Schedule (BLDG GROSS) Complying Decks
Level Name Area
LEVEL 1 DECK (COMPLYING) 794 SF
LEVEL 2 DECK (COMPLYING) 1704 SF
LEVEL 3 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
LEVEL 4 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
LEVEL 5 DECK (COMPLYING) 2388 SF
Grand total: 100 9661 SF
1" = 50'-0"2LEVEL 2 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"3LEVEL 3 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"4LEVEL 4 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"5LEVEL 5 - REC & LEISURE
1" = 50'-0"6LEVEL MEZZ - REC & LEISURE
Area Schedule (BLDG GROSS) Amenity for Rec & Leisure
Level Name Area
LEVEL 1 10671 SF
LEVEL 3 AMENITY 267 SF
LEVEL 4 AMENITY 267 SF
LEVEL 5 AMENITY 267 SF
Grand total 11474 SF
Total: 52,399 sf
Required: 51,400 sf
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity 11,474 sf
Complying Patios and Balconies (L1-L5)*
* Private patio and balcony dimensions vary per unit type based on location in the building. The private
patios and balconies noted on these plans are compliant with the following minimum area and dimension
requirements per section 18.20.16:
• Private patio ground floor: 100sf minimum and 8’ minimun dimension
• Private balcony above ground floor: 70sf minimum and 7’ minimum dimension
9,661 sf
Outdoor Common Recreation Area 31,264 sf
40’80’20’0’
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
LEVEL 5
1”=40’-0”
LEVEL MEZZ
1”=40’-0”
Indoor Rec-Leisure Amenity
Complying Patios and Balconies (L1-L5)
Outdoor Common Recreation Area
Other Landscaped Rec-Leisure Areas
(Min. 10’ Width)
L-6EREC-LEISURE PLAN
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
KEYMAP
10’20’5’0’
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
METRO DRIVE
PARK ST
NOTE:
Maximum Height of seating wall in urban court will be 3’ in the front/street setback area.
12/23/21 L-7EENTRY PLAZA
ENLARGEMENT
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
KEYMAP
AA
B
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
TRANSFORMER SCREENING HEDGE (A)TRANSFORMER SCREENING FENCE (B)
12/23/21 L-8ETRANSFORMER
SCREENING EXHIBIT
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
Architecture + Planning
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.0SHEET TITLE
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 11/24/20
DEVELOPMENT AREA B 0'10' 20'40'
METRO DRIVE
KEYMAP
C
12/23/21
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
TRANSFORMER SCREENING FENCE AND HEDGE (C)
VIEW FROM METRO DRIVE
12/23/21 L-9ETRANSFORMER
SCREENING EXHIBIT
METRO DRIVE4
5
6
3
27
8
10
9
111213
14
15
16
17
18
20
19
21
25
22 24 23
1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-1.1BUILDING LIGHTING PLANS - LVL 1DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Downlight, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Uplight, 3000K
Type AS1, AS2 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 36" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type DF1 - Decorative Outdoor Floor Lamp,
2700K
Type DF2 - Decorative Outdoor Floor Lamp,
2700K
Type DP2A - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Small, 2700K
Type DP2C - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Large, 2700K
Type DT1 - Decorative Outdoor Table Light ,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type DP2B - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Medium, 2700K
Type FS1 - Surface Mounted LED Bullet Light
on Trellis, 3000K
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2500K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2A - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS2B - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS2C - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS3 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
4
5
6
3
27
8
10
9
111213
14
15
16
17
18
20
19
21
25
22 24 23
1
2.3 2.4 2.6 3.3 4.8 8.2 9.2
9.5 9.6 7.4 4.6 3.4 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.7 5.2 8.7 8.2 9.6 5.9 3.1 2.0 1.5
12.0 8.2 8.5 5.1 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.5 4.5 6.3 7.9 6.9 4.4 2.8 2.0 1.8
14.5 13.7 12.0 12.2 12.6 13.5 14.9 13.4 9.8 6.6 4.5 3.5 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.2 3.8 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.1
16.6 13.3 8.6 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.2 5.3 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.2
12.2 7.7 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.0 3.8
10.3 5.8 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.1 3.0 3.2 2.2 3.1
5.0 3.3 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.8
1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 3.0 4.0 4.3
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.1 4.2 4.3
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.9 3.8 4.1
1.5 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.2 3.5
1.2 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.9
1.1 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.9
1.2 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.6
1.5 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 3.1 4.2 4.3
1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 4.0
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.1
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.3 3.6
1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.4
3.4
1.2 0.6 2.4 4.0
1.3 1.4 1.4 3.1 4.8 3.4 2.2
1.7 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.8 4.2 9.5 6.9 3.3 1.9
3.7 2.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 9.7 12.7 7.8 3.6 1.9
0.4 2.6 4.3 3.3 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.5 10.1 12.1 9.8 4.7 2.3
0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.4 4.3 3.3 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.4 11.2 11.7 6.4 3.0 1.7
3.5 3.9 3.5 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.1 1.1 10.0 11.7 8.8 4.3 2.4 1.6
0.9 2.0 1.8 1.2 3.2 5.5 6.2 3.2 3.6 8.3 1.6 12.0 12.1 7.3 4.3 2.9 2.1 1.6
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.6 5.1 7.2 3.3 9.3 10.2 4.0 4.5 11.2 2.0 2.9 10.8 12.2 12.1 9.5 6.1 4.0 3.0
0.7 1.2 1.4 3.2 8.8 1.5 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 7.1 10.0 3.3 9.8 10.9 4.4 4.7 11.6 2.2 1.1 2.0 11.0 11.9 12.3 9.4
1.4 3.8 4.7 2.3 4.1 11.0 1.9 7.4 4.1 2.8 7.6 10.5 3.4 9.9 11.1 4.4 4.3 10.6 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 3.1 12.5
2.4 8.3 9.0 3.2 4.2 10.9 2.2 10.6 5.8 2.9 7.0 10.0 3.7 10.1 11.5 4.2 3.3 6.2 4.7 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.9 4.5
2.7 9.1 10.3 3.5 3.5 8.0 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.7 1.9 2.9 2.7 11.3 6.1 2.7 4.4 5.5 4.1 10.2 11.6 4.5 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.8 1.4 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.6 3.4 3.6
2.8 9.1 10.3 3.4 2.4 3.2 2.7 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.4 2.9 10.6 5.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.5 4.2 9.1 10.8 6.1 3.6 2.4 2.0 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.7 4.4 5.1 4.5 3.2 2.3 2.4 3.3 4.3 3.5
2.6 7.6 8.0 2.8 1.7 1.6 2.5 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.4 4.1 6.4 3.9 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 3.0 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.3 4.5 8.0 10.4 9.2 6.2 3.2 2.0 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 5.1 7.8 9.2 8.4 5.8 3.1 2.7 3.5 4.6 2.8
3.7 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 5.3 10.4 13.8 13.3 9.4 4.2 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.2 6.5 11.3 14.1 12.8 8.5 3.8 2.8 3.5 4.4 4.0
2.2 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.6 5.3 12.0 17.1 16.5 10.9 4.2 2.0 2.1 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.8 6.6 13.4 17.7 15.8 9.8 3.8 2.8 3.6 4.4 3.9
2.5 2.1 2.2 4.0 6.4 6.8 5.5 3.3 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 2.2 3.9 5.8 6.5 5.3 2.8 1.7 1.9 3.0 3.8 2.5 3.5 9.7 15.0 14.5 8.6 2.8 1.9 2.8 4.8 2.6 2.2 4.3 11.4 15.6 13.7 7.1 2.9 3.1 5.9 5.8
2.9 2.4 3.1 7.6 11.1 11.3 8.5 4.9 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 3.1 6.3 9.7 11.4 10.1 5.3 2.1 2.0 4.6 7.2 2.5 1.9 3.1 5.4 5.1 2.6 1.6 1.7 3.8 10.2 2.8 1.7 1.9 3.6 5.8 4.8 2.5 2.1 3.6 14.0 12.9
2.9 2.4 3.9 11.0 15.9 15.5 10.9 5.7 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.8 3.9 8.8 13.7 16.6 14.8 8.2
1.9 3.0 10.7 16.4 16.0 10.5 12.9 17.5 18.7 15.8 7.7
1.3 1.7 4.2 9.8 10.3 5.8 32.6 26.7 14.8 9.4 3.1
3.4 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.1
3.9 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.3 3.8 3.2 2.6
4.1 4.9 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.3 4.9 4.4 3.7 2.9
4.2 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.5 3.8 3.0
4.2 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.1 3.5 2.9
4.0 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.2 2.7
3.7 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.6
0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2
0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0
0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9
0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.7
0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6
0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4
0.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.5
2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.9
2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.1
2.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.2
2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3
2.5 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3
2.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3
2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1
2.7 3.2 2.6 0.9 1.9 2.6 2.0 1.3
4.1 4.4 4.6 3.9 4.1 3.5 2.4 1.6
5.3 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.4 2.4 1.7
2.2 1.6
2.0 1.7
2.1 1.9
2.6 2.5
3.3 3.3
3.8 3.6
4.1 3.0
3.9 3.6
2.9 3.1
2.1 2.1
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.4 1.3
1.6 1.6
2.3 2.2
3.1 3.2
3.8 3.6
4.2 3.1
4.1 3.7
3.4 3.4
2.7 2.4
2.2 1.9
1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.8 4.2 4.2 3.5 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.2 3.0 3.9 4.2 4.3 3.6 2.8 2.0 1.6
2.3 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.1 3.0 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.1 3.0 3.6 2.7 3.3 3.5 2.6 1.8 1.3
3.2 2.9 2.3 1.8
4.8 4.6 3.9 4.2 3.1 1.7 1.5
5.3 5.1 4.2 4.5 1.7 1.4 1.3
4.7 5.5 4.6 4.4 2.0 1.4 1.4
4.6 5.6 4.6 4.0 3.2 1.6 1.6
4.9 5.1 4.5 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.1
3.0 4.1 3.4 4.0 4.2 3.1 2.3 4.1 4.5 4.5 2.1 1.9 3.0 3.0
2.8 3.9 3.7 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.3 3.1 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.2 4.1 3.9 2.9 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.7 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.7 5.0 4.9 4.4 3.3 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.7 3.4
2.3 3.0 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.7 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.7 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.5 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.7 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.9 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.1 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.8 3.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.3 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.2 4.0 2.6
1.6 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.2 2.6 1.4 1.0 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.8 1.4 1.4 2.8 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.2 1.8 1.3 2.8 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 4.0 3.3
3.1 3.1
2.2 2.1
1.5 1.5
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.3 1.2
1.6 1.6
2.3 2.3
3.2 3.2
3.8 3.1
3.9 2.6
3.5 3.4
2.6 2.7
1.8 1.7
1.3 1.3
1.1 1.1
1.2 1.1
1.4 1.4
2.0 2.0
2.8 2.9
3.5 3.3
3.9 2.6
3.9 3.2
2.9 3.0
2.1 2.0
1.5 1.4
1.2 1.1
1.1 1.1
1.3 1.2
1.7 1.7
2.4 2.4
3.3 3.3
4.0 3.1
3.9 2.7
3.5 3.4
2.6 2.6
1.8 1.7
1.3 1.2
1.1 1.0
1.1 1.1
1.3 1.3
1.8 1.8
2.6 2.7
3.4 3.2
3.8 2.4
2.1 4.1
3.2 4.0
3.3 3.3
2.5 2.6
2.1 2.2
2.1 2.3
2.6 2.9
3.1 4.0
2.5 4.6 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.4 3.9 3.4
1.2 4.7 5.1 4.2 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.1 4.6 2.9
2.9 5.1 5.4 4.2 4.7 2.5
3.4 4.7 5.5 3.9 4.4 3.9
2.7 4.0 5.4 3.3 3.8 3.8
2.8 3.3 3.5
2.5 3.4 4.2
2.3 3.6 4.7
4.1 2.8 1.6 1.1
3.7 2.7 1.8 1.3
2.8 2.6 2.2
3.0 2.9
3.6 3.7
3.0 4.3
2.5 4.5
3.5 4.0
2.9 3.1
2.0 2.3 2.4 2.5
1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3
1.9 2.8 3.8 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.4
1.9 2.8 3.5 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.0 2.3
1.7 2.1 2.1 0.6 0.9 2.2 2.1 1.5
1.4 1.6
3.1 4.3 3.7
2.0 5.0 4.4
3.9 5.6 4.8
5.1 5.9 4.9
3.7 5.6 4.8
1.7 4.9 4.4
2.9 4.4 3.8
3.5 3.0
3.9 3.5
4.0 3.5
3.5 3.0
2.8 2.5
2.3 2.1
2.5 2.2
3.2 2.7
3.8 3.3
3.9 3.6
3.8 3.4
1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2
2.3 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5
2.9 3.5 3.0 2.3 1.8
2.0 4.1 3.7 2.7 2.0
1.7 4.3 3.8 2.3 2.1
3.0 3.9 3.4 2.1 1.4
2.7 3.0 2.8 1.8 1.3
2.1 2.3 2.2 1.5 1.2
1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7
2.5 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.8
3.0 3.7 3.2 2.4 1.9
2.2 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.0
1.3 4.2 3.9 2.8 2.0
2.8 4.0 3.5 2.6 1.8
2.8 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.7
2.1 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.5
1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4
1.8 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4
2.3 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5
2.9 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.6
2.4 4.1 3.6 2.5 1.7
1.1 4.1 3.7 2.6 1.8
2.5 4.0 3.5 2.5 1.7
2.8 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.5
2.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.4
1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3
1.8 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3
2.4 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4
2.9 3.4 2.9 2.1 1.5
2.4 4.1 3.5 2.4 1.6
1.2 4.1 3.6 2.5 1.6
2.7 3.8 3.2 2.2 1.5
2.7 2.9 2.5 1.8 1.4
1.9 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.2
1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1
1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2
1.9 2.0 1.9 1.5
2.8 3.1
3.2 4.0
1.9 4.6
2.6 4.7
3.4 4.2
2.7 3.1
1.9 2.1
1.4 1.5
1.2 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.4 1.4
1.9 2.1
2.7 3.0
2.5 3.8
1.1 4.1
2.4 3.8
2.8 3.0
1.9 2.0
1.3 1.4
1.0 1.1
0.9 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.3 1.4
1.9 2.1
2.7 3.1
2.4 3.9
1.2 4.1
2.5 3.7
2.7 2.9
1.8 2.0
1.3 1.4
1.0 1.1
0.9 1.0
1.0 1.1
1.4 1.5
2.1 2.2
2.8 3.2
2.3 3.9
1.2 4.0
2.7 3.6
2.5 2.7
1.7 1.8
1.2 1.3
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.1 1.2
1.6 1.7
2.4 2.6
2.8 3.4
1.4 3.9 3.3
2.0 3.9 3.3
2.8 3.3 2.7
2.3 2.4 2.1
1.6 1.8 1.6
1.5 1.7 1.8
1.7 2.2 2.6
1.9 3.0 3.8
1.0 1.0
2.4 2.2 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9
2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1
2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7
2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.9
2.7 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0
2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9
2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8
2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6
2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6
2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9
2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1
2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2
2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3
2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.0
2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4
2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5
2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.3
1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.5
1.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.2
1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.0
1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.3
1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.2
2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.4
2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.2
2.2 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.0
2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0
2.5 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
2.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1
2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.9 3.8 3.9 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.2
2.2 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.2 3.2 4.5 3.9 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.2
2.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 4.4 4.2 3.0 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3
2.6 3.0 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.3 2.6 4.2 3.8 2.9 2.2 1.7 1.4
2.7 3.4 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.0 3.1 2.3 1.8 3.0 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.5
2.6 3.3 3.7 2.5 2.8 3.6 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.7
3.5 3.2 2.6 2.1
4.1 3.7 2.8 2.2
3.9
3.6 5.1 6.5
3.4 4.1 5.3 6.0 6.5 6.4 5.0 3.1 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.8 4.3 4.8
3.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.2 4.3 2.9 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.7 4.1 4.5
5.3 6.0 5.4 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.4 3.3 3.6
6.5 5.6 4.4 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.0
5.9 4.6 3.2 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.5 3.2 3.7 3.6 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7
5.3 4.3 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.9 3.8 4.5 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.6
3.7 3.2 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.2 3.0 4.0 4.1 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6
2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.7 3.6 4.0
1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.1
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2
1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.4
1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4
1.1 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
1.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4
1.2 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4
1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4
1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5
1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.4
1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6
1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.6
1.5 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8
1.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9
1.3 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.8
1.2 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8
1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6
1.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7
1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2
1.2 1.6 2.2 2.8 2.9
1.3 1.8 2.7 3.7 3.8
1.3 2.0 3.0 4.1 3.4
1.3 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
1.3 1.8 2.5 3.4 3.6
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.6 2.7
1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7
2.5 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.7
3.9 4.0 3.3 2.4 1.9
4.7 4.7 3.9 2.8 2.1
3.9 4.1 3.5 2.7 2.3
2.7 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5
1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.1
1.6 2.1 2.9 3.7 3.9
1.6 2.2 3.2 4.2 3.8
1.6 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.6
1.5 2.1 3.0 3.9 4.1 2.9 2.3
1.4 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.5 3.1 2.7
1.4 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6
1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4
1.4 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.1
1.5 2.1 3.0 3.8 3.7
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Max/Avg
Amenity Deck Illuminance Fc 3.80 16.6 0.9 4.22 18.44 4.37
Garage Entry Driveway Illuminance Fc 2.24 4.3 1.1 2.04 3.91 1.92
Leasing Office Deck Illuminance Fc 4.84 32.6 0.4 12.10 81.50 6.74
Outdoor Seating_By the Pool Illuminance Fc 4.20 5.6 2.1 2.00 2.67 1.33
Outdoor Seating_North Illuminance Fc 1.24 2.0 0.4 3.10 5.00 1.61
Outdoor Seating_Northwest Illuminance Fc 2.58 3.2 1.5 1.72 2.13 1.24
Pathway_East Illuminance Fc 2.55 5.6 0.9 2.83 6.22 2.20
Pathway_ELEC 2&TRASH Illuminance Fc 3.52 5.5 1.2 2.93 4.58 1.56
Pathway_North Illuminance Fc 2.73 4.5 1.1 2.48 4.09 1.65
Pathway_North_2 Illuminance Fc 2.62 4.6 0.6 4.37 7.67 1.76
Pathway_Northeast Illuminance Fc 4.23 5.9 1.7 2.49 3.47 1.39
Pathway_Northwest Illuminance Fc 3.18 4.0 2.1 1.51 1.90 1.26
Pathway_West Illuminance Fc 2.25 4.7 0.9 2.50 5.22 2.09
Pool Deck Illuminance Fc 1.90 4.6 1.0 1.90 4.60 2.42
Pool West Illuminance Fc 2.25 6.5 1.0 2.25 6.50 2.89
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-2.1SITE PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION
PLANS - LVL 1
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
1 EX POLE - Existing Road Way Pole - Per
Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 102W,
B1-U0-G1
2
Type AS1 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Downlight, 3000K
3
4
5
6
7
8
NEW POLE - Matching Existing Road Way Pole
- Per Anaheim City Standards, 4000K, 39W,
B1-U0-G1
Type AL1 - Stake-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Accent, 3000K
Type AS2 - Tree Ring-mounted Adjustable LED
Bullet Uplight, 3000K
Type AS1, AS2 Tree Ring - Palm Tree Ring
Type BH1 - 36" Tall LED Bollard Light, 3000K
Type DF1 - Decorative Outdoor Floor Lamp,
2700K
Type DF2 - Decorative Outdoor Floor Lamp,
2700K
Type DP2A - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Small, 2700K
Type DP2C - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Large, 2700K
Type DT1 - Decorative Outdoor Table Light ,
2700K
9
10
11
12
13
LIGHTING LEGEND
Type DP2B - Decorative Outdoor Pendant -
Medium, 2700K
Type FS1 - Surface Mounted LED Bullet Light
on Trellis, 3000K
Type GL1 - In-grade Landscape Adjustable LED
Uplight, 3000K
Type RA1 - Recessed Adjustable LED
Downlight, 3000K
Type SC1 - Suspended LED Festoon String,
2500K
Type SS1 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type SS2 - Surface-mounted Linear LED
Tapelight, 3000K
Type WS1 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
Type WS2A - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS2B - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS2C - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 2700K
Type WS3 - Surface-mounted LED Wall
Sconce, 3000K
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Type DP1 - Decorative Outdoor Pendant,
2700K
25
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE EX POLE LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE NEW POLE LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AL1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS1
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS1, AS2 TREE RINGLIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE AS2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE BH1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DF1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.1LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA E
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DF2 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP2A LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP2B
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DP2C LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE DT1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE FS1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE GL1
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.2LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA E
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE RA1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SC1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SS1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE SS2
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS1 LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS2A LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS2B LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS2C
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.3LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA E
LIGHT FIXTURE - TYPE WS3
562.989.3843
lightingdesignalliance.com
Lighting Consultant
FINAL SITE PLAN - PLANNING COMMISSION SET
20-0183ANAHEIM, CA 12/23/2021 LD-3.4LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONSDEVELOPMENT AREA E
2114 SFLEASING2600 SFAMENITYPOOLBATH/EQMTLOBBY583 SFELEC 1621 SFELEC 2TRASHSTORAGE433 SFMAILMAINTENANCE3190 SFAMENITYELECSTORAGE502 SFELEC 3247 SFELEC 4GARAGE1454 SFAMENITYLOBBYSTORAGEPET WASHIDFIDFIDF1,786 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT2,287 SFMARKET2,104 SFFITNESS1,974 SFLEASINGLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYTRASH RMELEC RM 1 & 2ELEC. RM 4ELEC RM 3ELEV. EQLOBBY13,876 SFMARKETMPOEFAN ROOM1,808 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANT1,912 SFRETAIL /RESTAURANTELEC RMGARAGEELEV. EQRETAIL PARKINGTRASH RMFAN ROOMTRASH RMRETAILPET SPAMAIL RM E. KATELLA AVE
S. WESTSIDE DRIVEMARKET STREETMERIDIAN STREET
PARK STREET METRO DRIVE E. KATELLA AVE
EXISTING ARCO
GAS STATION
EXISTING
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY FACILITY
TRACT 17703 - LOT 3
DEVELOPMENT AREA D
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
TRACT 17703 - LOT 2
DEVELOPMENT AREA C
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT A
PUBLIC PARK
TRACT 17703 - LOT 5
DEVELOPMENT AREA F
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT 6
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
TRACT 17703 - LOT 7
DEVELOPMENT AREA H
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
MERIDIAN STREET
S. WESTSIDE DRIVEUNION STREETPARK STREET
ULTIMATE FIRE ACCESS ROUTE
FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA E
THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AREA F
F-2
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
80'160'
80
INDICATES PROPOSED STRUCTURE
INDICATES PAVED SURFACE ON GRADE, WITH
ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING ANAHEIM
FIRE & RESCUE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT
VEHICULAR LOADS OF 70,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE
OVER SOIL COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90%
INDICATES EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
LEGEND
INDICATES PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
OVERALL
FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
TRACT 17703 - LOT 4
SHEET F-4
TRACT 17703 - LOT 1
DEVELOPMENT AREA B
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
NOT A PART
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
11/11/2021
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA E - TRACT 17703 LOT 4 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA E - FIRE MASTER PLANThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA E
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
AMM SUBMITTAL
INDICATES ULTIMATE FIRE ACCESS ROUTE FOR
DEVELOPMENT AREA E THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AREA F
2114 SFLEASING2600 SFAMENITYPOOLBATH/EQMTLOBBY583 SFELEC 1621 SFELEC 2TRASHSTORAGE433 SFMAILMAINTENANCE3190 SFAMENITYELECSTORAGE502 SFELEC 3247 SFELEC 4GARAGE1454 SFAMENITYLOBBYSTORAGEPET WASHIDFIDFIDFSP SP
SP
SP
SP
KB
4
KS
3
MOTORIZED
VEHICULAR GATE
KB
4
KB
4
5
KB
4
5
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
KB
4
122' TOTAL OUT OF ACCESS
79' TOTAL OUT OF ACCESS54' OUT OF ACCESS133' OUT OF ACCESS
SPLOADINGPOOL
SPA
2
2
2
2
2 R=17.5'R=38'R=38'R=17.5'R=17.5'R=38'R
=
1
7
.
5
'
R
=
3
8
'
2
242'20'86'
28'26'
42'
20'
26'
111'
33'
29'
28'20'26'45'
35'
31'
35'
25'R=17.5'R
=
1
7
.
5
'
5
TEMPORARY FIRE DEPARTMENT
TURNAROUND UNTIL PRIVATE DRIVE
CONNECTION IS CONSTRUCTED
THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
F CONNECTION TO PARK STREET
81'58'S. STATE COLLEGE BLVD.METRO STREETEXISTING ARCO
GAS STATION
EXISTING
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY FACILITY
TRACT 17703 - LOT 3
DEVELOPMENT AREA G
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
PARK STREET
TRACT 17703 -
LOT 5
DEVELOPMENT
AREA F
FUTURE
RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED DDC
PROPOSED FDC
TEMPORARY PAVED
PORTION OF THE
TEMPORARY FIRE
DEPARTMENT
TURNAROUND AREA
68'28'KB
4
KB
4
F-3
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
30'60'
30 R=
1
7
.
5
'R=
3
8
'
KB
PROPOSED FIRE LANE SIGNAGE AS INDICATED ON
PLAN AND DETAILS PROVIDED ON SHEET F-1
INDICATES PROPOSED STRUCTURE
PAINT CURB RED WITH 'FIRE LANE NO STOPPING'
STENCIL AT 30' O.C. PER DETAILS ON SHEET F-1
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF KNOX BOX
WITH 3-SETS OF ENTRY DOOR/GATE KEYS
INDICATES KNOX KEY SWITCH
INDICATES 150' HOSE PULL FROM FIRE ACCESS
ROADWAY
INDICATES PAVED SURFACE ON GRADE, WITH
ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING ANAHEIM
FIRE & RESCUE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT
VEHICULAR LOADS OF 70,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE
OVER SOIL COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90%
INDICATES EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
INDICATES PROPOSED PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT
INDICATES PROPOSED STANDPIPE LOCATIONS FOR
150' HOSE PULL DEFICIENCY. FINAL LOCATION AS
PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY OTHERS.
INDICATES PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
LOCATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINAL LOCATION AS
PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.
INDICATES PROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK
LOCATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FINAL
LOCATION AS PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.
INDICATES ELEVATOR LOCATIONS
INDICATES STANDARD AERIAL TRUCK LADDERING
ACCESS
BUILDING IDENTIFICATION LOCATIONS - 6" MIN. TALL
LETTERING - APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN -
SEE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR FINAL DESIGN
INDICATES STAIR LOCATIONS
1
2
INDICATES KNOX KEY SWITCH3
4
5INSTALL RED CURB PER DETAILS ON SHEET F-1
INSTALL FIRE LANE ENTRANCE SIGN PER DETAIL ON
SHEET F-1
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION KNOX BOX WITH
3-SETS OF ENTRY DOOR/GATE KEYS
INSTALL WET STANDPIPE FOR HOSE PULL DEFICIENCY
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND
KS
INDICATES OUT OF ACCESS FROM 150' HOSE PULL.
DISTANCE PROVIDED ON LAYOUT
SP
BUILDING DATA
FIRE FLOW OF 4,000 GPM / 4 HOURS FOR THE BUILDING OF 274,600 SF WITH TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM. FIELD VERIFICATION OF FIRE FLOW OF 3,000 GPM AT 20 PSI FOR A 4-HOUR DURATION SHALL BE
REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRECISE GRADE PERMIT. 4 HYDRANTS MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED
BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
AUTOMATIC
FIRE
SPRINKLERS
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
RESIDENTIAL
LEVELS
FULL NFPA 13 274,600 SF
PARKING GARAGE FULL NFPA 13 158,550 SFTYPE I-A
TYPE III-A5 LEVELS
6 TIERS
INDICATES PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE
BEYOND 150-FOOT HOSE PULL THAT SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF 5/8" GYPSUM
TYPE-X DRYWALL FOR EACH UNIT AT EACH PARTY
WALL AS PART OF THE ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND
METHODS REQUEST
INDICATES MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS
WITH A 17.5' INSIDE TURNING RADII AND
38' OUTSIDE TURNING RADII
INDICATES PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH
BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER
DEVELOPMENT AREA E
FIRE MASTER PLAN LAYOUT
ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS REQUEST
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
11/11/2021
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA E - TRACT 17703 LOT 4 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA E - FIRE MASTER PLANThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA E
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
AMM SUBMITTAL
INDICATES TEMPORARY PAVED SURFACE ON GRADE,
WITH ALL-WEATHER PAVED SURFACE MEETING
ANAHEIM FIRE & RESCUE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT
VEHICULAR LOADS OF 70,000 LBS WITH A ROAD BASE
OVER SOIL COMPACTED TO A LEAST 90% AT THE
TEMPORARY FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND
F-4DEVELOPMENT AREA E
ELEVATIONS
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
20'40'
20
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
11/11/2021
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA E - TRACT 17703 LOT 4 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA E - FIRE MASTER PLANThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA E
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
AMM SUBMITTAL
F-5DEVELOPMENT AREA E
SECTIONS
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = ft.
20'40'
20
SECTION 1 (NORTH - SOUTH)
SECTION 2 (EAST - WEST)
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
302 N. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
11/11/2021
SHEET:
OF 5
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT AREA E - TRACT 17703 LOT 4 A-TOWN - DEVELOPMENT AREA E - FIRE MASTER PLANThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction, publication, or re-use by any method, in whole or in part without the express consent of FIRESAFE PLANNING SOLUTIONS is prohibited.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:ARCHITECT:
FIRE MASTER PLAN
A-TOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA E
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
100 AVENDIA MIRAMAR
IRVINE, CA 92618
3 HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92614
17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
AMM SUBMITTAL
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment A
A-Town
Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
Date Prepared: 9/28/2021
W.O. 3916-65
F:\0108\Planning\SA_DA E\Entitlements\DensityTransfer
A-Town
Final Site Plan - Retail Floor Space, Residential Dwelling Units and Residential Density Tracking Table
Development
Area
Size
(Net
Acres)
Master
Site Plan
Target Commercial
Floor Space Range
(Sq. Ft.)
Final
Site Plan
Total
Commercial
Floor Space
(Sq. Ft.)
Master
Site Plan
Target
Residential
Dwelling Units
Range
Final
Site Plan
Total
Residential
Dwelling Units
Remaining
Dwelling
Units from
Maximum
Allocated
Dwelling Unit
Transfer from
other
Development
Areas
Percent of
Maximum
Allocated
Dwelling
Units
Master
Site Plan
Target Residential
Density Range
(DU/AC)
Final
Site Plan
Total
Residential
Density
(DU/AC)
A 5.6 0 - 392 - 403 400 3 - - 70 - 72 71.4
B 3.2 21,000 - 25,000 21,640 165 - 281 270 11 - - 50 - 85 84.4
C 3.2 17,000 - 25,000 17,000 160 - 272 254 18 - - 50 - 85 79.4
D 3.1 0 140 - 217 254 - 37 117% 45 - 70 81.9
E 3.2 0 - 93 - 217 257 - 40 118% 30 - 70 80.3
F 4.3 0 - 70 - 132 73 59 - - 16 - 30 17.0
G 5.3 0 - 106 - 159 154 5 - - 20 - 30 29.1
H 4.4 0 - 90 - 99 84 15 - - 20 - 22 19.1
Overall
Project
Final
Site Plan
Totals
32.3 38,000 (min.) /
50,000 (max.) 38,640 1,400 (min.) /
1,746 (max.) 1,746 111 77 - 43.3 (min.) /
54.1 (max.) 54.1
Notes:
1. Overall Project Final Site Plan Totals for commercial floor space and residential dwelling units cannot be less than or exceed the Master Site Plan allocations of 38,000 to 50,000 square
feet of commercial floor space and 1,400 to 1,746 residential dwelling units.
2. Development Area size is based on lot/parcel areas from Tract Map No. 17703 (B, C, D & G) and Lot Line Adjustments LLA-0000739 (A), LLA-000792 (H) and LLA-0000821 (E & F).
3. Development Areas D and E will require dwelling unit transfers as permitted by the A-Town Development Agreement – Section 10.
4. The cumulative number of dwelling units resulting from the transfer from one Development Area to another will not exceed 120% of the maximum density of the receiving Development
Area as shown on the Development Summary Table, Exhibit I.
Existing
ATTACHMENT 5
Attachment A
A-Town
Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
Date Prepared: 9/28/2021
W.O. 3916-65
F:\0108\Planning\SA_DA E\Entitlements\DensityTransfer
A-Town
Final Site Plan - Retail Floor Space, Residential Dwelling Units and Residential Density Tracking Table
Development
Area
Size
(Net
Acres)
Master
Site Plan
Target Commercial
Floor Space Range
(Sq. Ft.)
Final
Site Plan
Total
Commercial
Floor Space
(Sq. Ft.)
Master
Site Plan
Target
Residential
Dwelling Units
Range
Final
Site Plan
Total
Residential
Dwelling Units
Remaining
Dwelling
Units from
Maximum
Allocated
Dwelling Unit
Transfer from
other
Development
Areas
Percent of
Maximum
Allocated
Dwelling
Units
Master
Site Plan
Target Residential
Density Range
(DU/AC)
Final
Site Plan
Total
Residential
Density
(DU/AC)
A 5.6 0 - 392 - 403 400 3 - - 70 - 72 71.4
B 3.2 21,000 - 25,000 21,640 165 - 281 270 11 - - 50 - 85 84.4
C 3.2 17,000 - 25,000 17,000 160 - 272 254 18 - - 50 - 85 79.4
D 3.1 0 140 - 217 254 - 37 117% 45 - 70 81.9
E 3.2 0 - 93 - 217 257 - 40 118% 30 - 70 80.3
F 4.3 0 - 70 - 132 73 59 - - 16 - 30 17.0
G 5.3 0 - 106 - 159 154 5 - - 20 - 30 29.1
H 4.4 0 - 90 - 99 84 15 - - 20 - 22 19.1
Overall
Project
Final
Site Plan
Totals
32.3 38,000 (min.) /
50,000 (max.) 38,640 1,400 (min.) /
1,746 (max.) 1,746 111 77 - 43.3 (min.) /
54.1 (max.) 54.1
Notes:
1.Overall Project Final Site Plan Totals for commercial floor space and residential dwelling units cannot be less than or exceed the Master Site Plan allocations of 38,000 to 50,000 square
feet of commercial floor space and 1,400 to 1,746 residential dwelling units.
2.Development Area size is based on lot/parcel areas from Tract Map No. 17703 (B, C, D & G) and Lot Line Adjustments LLA-0000739 (A), LLA-000792 (H) and LLA-0000821 (E & F).
3.Development Areas D and E will require dwelling unit transfers as permitted by the A-Town Development Agreement – Section 10.
4.The cumulative number of dwelling units resulting from the transfer from one Development Area to another will not exceed 120% of the maximum density of the receiving Development
Area as shown on the Development Summary Table, Exhibit I.
Proposed
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339
AND ADDENDA
On October 26, 2010, the City Council City Council certified the "Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339" (FSEIR No. 339) in
conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overla y Zone, and related zoning
reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the PTMU Overlay
Zone to allow up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square feet of office uses; 4,909,682
square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Three addenda to EIR No. 339 have been subsequently approved in connection with the Katella
Avenue/I-5 undercrossing improvements and revisions to the Platinum Gateway and Platinum
Vista projects. These projects included changes to the maximum permitted development intensity,
which now permits up to 19,027 residential uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 has been prepared to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the proposed A-Town Development Area E Project were fully-disclosed b y FSEIR No.
339 or if a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary for this project. The analysis in FSEIR
No. 339 included anticipated build-out of the previously-approved A-Town Metro Project. As more
thoroughl y described in the Addendum, the proposed A-Town Project is considered to be a
refinement of the development assumptions analyzed by FSEIR No. 339 and will not require any
major revisions to the Final EIR.
FSEIR No. 339 and its Addenda, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program 106C approved
in conjunction with FSEIR No. 339 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the proposed A-
Town Project, are available on the City’s website at: http://www.anaheim.net/1075/Report-
Number-339.
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
SUBJECT: AREA B DEV2020-00287, FSP2021-00002, CUP2021-06109, AND MIS2021-
00776
AREA E DEV2020-00288, FSP2021-00003, AND CUP2021-06113
ADDRESS: Area B: 1807, 1819, 1825, 1831, and 1837 Market Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
Area E: 1820 Metro Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805
APN: Area B: 232-121-30
Area E: 232-121-33
LOCATION: Area B: Southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Market Street
Area E: East of the intersection of Park Street and Metro Drive and West of State College
Boulevard
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
R Aesthetics £ Agricultural & Forest Resources R Air Quality
£ Biological Resources R Cultural Resources £ Geology / Soils
R Greenhouse Gas Emissions R Hazards & Hazardous Materials R Hydrology/Water
Quality
R Land Use / Planning £ Mineral Resources R Noise
R Population / Housing R Public Services R Recreation
R Transportation / Traffic R Utilities / Service Systems R Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
£ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
£ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
£ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
£ I find 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 earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
ATTACHMENT 7
R I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative
Andy T. Uk, Associate Planner
Printed Name, Title
Date
(714) 765-4958
Phone Number
December 28, 2021
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used, or individuals
contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less
Than Significant impacts”.
d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture
zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration (§ 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the
General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 1
Project Setting
The Project Site includes two development areas of the A-Town Master Site Plan: Development Area B
(Lot 1, Tract No. 17703), approximately 3.2-acres; and Development Area E (Lot 4, Tract No. 17703),
approximately 3.1-acres. Collectively, Development Areas B and E are the “Project Sites” in this document.
Development Area B is located at the southwest corner of East Katella Avenue and South Market Street,
and Development Area E is located approximately 135 feet south of the intersection of East Katella Avenue
and South State Colle Boulevard. The Project Sites are part of the A-Town Master Site plan approved by
City Council in 2015 that permitted development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and between
38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. Development Area B is entitled for residential
development within the range of 165 to 281 dwelling units (50-85 dwelling units per acre); and, for 21,000
to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Development Area E is entitled for residential development
within the range of 93 to 217 dwelling units (30-70 dwelling units per acre). The Project Sites are currently
undeveloped but have been “rough-graded” and the Property Owner/Developer has completed the majority
of the infrastructure within the A-Town Master Site Plan.
The following describes the surrounding uses of each development area:
Development Area B
North: East Katella Avenue with multiple family residential uses across East Katella Avenue;
East: South Market Street, undeveloped A-Town Development Area C, and Aloe Greens Park;
South: East Meridian Street, multiple family residential in A-Town Development Area H, and Aloe
Promenade; and
West: South Westside Drive and multiple family residential in A-Town Development Area A.
Development Area E
North: Automobile service station with a convenience market;
East: South State College Boulevard and multiple family residential uses across South State College
Boulevard;
South: Southern California Gas Company; and
West: South Metro Drive and undeveloped A-Town Development Area F
Project Background
In May 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update
that established a new vision for the Platinum Triangle as a dynamic mixed-use urban district. This update
created new land use designations within the Platinum Triangle that provide opportunities for existing,
largely industrial, uses to transition to mixed-use, residential, office, and commercial uses. This General
Plan Update also established the overall maximum development intensities for the Platinum Triangle, which
at that time permitted up to 9,175 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 2,044,300
square feet of commercial uses.
In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) and the
Platinum Triangle Master Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to implement this new vision for the Platinum
Triangle. Under these updated zoning regulations, an approved Final Site Plan and a Development
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 2
Agreement between property owners and the City are required for all development utilizing the PTMU
Overlay Zone.
On October 25, 2005, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332
(FSEIR No. 332) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP and Zoning
Code and related reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within the Platinum
Triangle to up to 9,500 residential units, 5,000,000 square feet of office uses, and 2,254,400 square feet of
commercial uses.
On October 25, 2005, immediately following the certification of FSEIR No. 332 and approval of the related
actions, the City Council approved an application from Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC to construct the A-
Town Metro Project. The original project consisted of up to 2,681 residential units; 150,000 square feet of
commercial uses; two public parks; and a network of local streets. An addendum to FSEIR 332 was
prepared and approved as part of the A-Town Metro Project. On November 8, 2005, City Council approved
a Development Agreement for the A-Town Metro Project/. On December 13, 2005, the City recorded the
A-Town Metro Project’s Development Agreement. On December 16, 2008, City Council approved an
amendment to the Development Agreement to allow additional time to complete certain milestones. On
February 23, 2009, the City recorded the amended Development Agreement.
On October 26, 2010, the City Council certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339
(FSEIR No. 339) in conjunction with its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, PTMU
Overlay Zone, and related zoning reclassifications to increase the allowable development intensities within
the PTMU Overlay Zone from 10,266 residential units up to 18,909 residential units; 14,340,522 square
feet of office uses; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional
uses. Subsequent amendments and addenda to FSEIR No. 339 have analyzed and revised the maximum
development intensities to up to 17,501 residential units; 134,490,233 square feet of office uses; 4,782,243
square feet of commercial uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339 in conjunction with
its approval of amendments to the General Plan, PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone, and an amended and
restated development agreement, tentative tract map and final site plan for the revised A-Town Metro
Project. This revised project permitted development of between 1,400 and 1,746 residential units, and
between 38,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, and a network of local streets
within the A-Town Metro Project area (Refer to Figure I-1, A-Town Metro Project). The City Council
also approved the Final Site Plan for the first phase of the A-Town Metro Project for a 400-unit apartment
project with a 6-story parking structure in Development Area A.
Figure I-1
A-Town Metro Project
Source: Hunsaker & Associates, December 2013.
REMNANT GENE AUTRY WAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED( 2,487 SF/0.05 AC)
CONNECTOR STREETSMARKET STREET
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 4
Project Description
Area B
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use structure in Development Area B of the A-Town Master Site Plan.
The proposed structure will consist of eight-levels, with one subterranean level and seven levels above
grade. The structure will include 270 residential dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground
floor commercial space with 505 square feet of accessory outdoor dining space. The number of residential
units and commercial floor space is consistent with the development allocation for Development Area B of
the A-town Master Site plan of 165 to 281 residential dwelling units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of
commercial floor space. The project will have a residential density of 82 dwelling units per acre, consistent
with the development allocation of 50 to 85 dwelling units per acre for Development Area B of the A-Town
Master Site Plan. Figure I-2, Proposed Site Plan-Development Area B, shows the proposed site plan.
The project will include ground-floor residential units along South Westside Drive and East Meridian
Street. The project’s ground-floor commercial space will consist of a 16,163 square foot market at the
corner of South Market Street and East Katella Avenue and three, inline, commercial tenant spaces along
South Market Street. Residential dwelling units will range in size from approximately 724 square feet to
1,341 square feet. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 168 one-bedroom units and 102 two-
bedroom units.
The applicant is proposing a modification to the Ground Floor Use Diagram of the approved A-Town
Master Site Plan to replace commercial space with residential amenity space at the southeast corner of the
structure. The applicant proposes to replace residential stoops and patios with residential amenity space at
the northwest and southwest corners of the structure. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for above ground-mounted utility facilities to be located within the East Katella Avenue structural
setback. These facilities include electrical transformer, water meter, backflow, and fire department
connections. The applicant will provide enhanced landscaping between the equipment and the sidewalk to
screen the equipment. The applicant is also proposing an amended Parking Management Plan to update on-
street parking totals for East Meridian Street and South Westside Drive to accommodate the building’s
access points and on-street loading area. The Parking Management Plan is subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
Common area improvements for residents will include a first-floor fitness center, pet spa area, mailroom,
and a leasing office. The third floor will include an open recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck,
outdoor seating, barbecue, residential dining areas, a co-working space, and a clubroom. The seventh floor
will include an open deck area with two enclosed amenity spaces and outdoor seating.
The applicant is proposing a contemporary architectural style with street-level articulation along all four
street frontages, and a variety of materials and building articulation. Materials proposed include wood fiber-
cement board, metal panels, commercial storefront glazing, and stucco in a variety of colors. The project
design locates the largest massing along East Katella Avenue and South Market Street with a maximum
height of 86 feet. The applicant is proposing smaller intermediate massing along South Westside Drive and
East Meridian Street.
The project will provide 607 vehicular parking spaces within the podium base in three levels: one level
underground, one level at grade, and one level above grade. The Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) requires
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 5
a minimum of 456 parking spaces for the proposed 270 residential units. The project is proposing to provide
466 residential parking spaces. The AMC requires a minimum of 137 parking spaces for the proposed
22,173 square feet of commercial space. The project is proposing to provide 141 commercial parking
spaces.
Vehicles will access the parking spaces for the market and the commercial tenants from a driveway on
South Market Street, approximately 350 feet south of East Katella Avenue; the driveway will provide access
to ground-level parking spaces. Vehicular access for the residents will be located on East Meridian Street
in two driveways. The first residential driveway will be located near South Market Street and will provide
access for residents and guests to parking spaces on the third level of the parking structure. The second
residential driveway will be located near South Westside Drive and will provide access for residents to
parking spaces in the subterranean level of the parking structure. The applicant is proposing a loading dock
with vehicular access on South Westside Drive, approximately 70 feet south of East Katella Avenue, to
serve the market.
Figure I-2
Conceptual Site Plan-Area B
Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, October 2021.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 7
Area E
The applicant is proposing a multiple-family structure in Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site
Plan. The proposed structure will consist of a five-level multiple-family structure wrapping a six-level
parking structure. The multiple-family structure will include 257 dwelling units (for-rent) which is greater
than the development allocation for Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site Plan of 93 to 217
residential dwelling units. The project will have a residential density of 80.3 dwelling units per acre, which
is greater than the target residential density allocation for Development Area E of the A-Town Master Site
Plan of 30 to 70 dwelling units per acre. Residential dwelling units will range in size from approximately
551 square feet to 962 square feet. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 89 studio units, 118 one-
bedroom units, and 50 two-bedroom units.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the transfer 40 units of from various
Development Areas within the A-Town Metro Project to Development Area E, to accommodate the
increase in residential dwelling units and residential density. The applicant is proposing to transfer 20 units
from Development Area F, five units from Development Area G, and 15 units from Development Area H.
Section 10 of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 approved by the City
Council for the A-Town Metro Project allows for transfer of unused residential dwelling units to
Development Areas that do not already have approved Final Site Plans. Figure I-2, Proposed Site Plan-
Development Area E, shows the proposed site plan.
Common area improvements for residents will include a first-floor amenity room, lobby, and leasing office
fronting South Metro Drive. A recreation courtyard will be located along the south side of the structure
with a pool, spa, sun deck, barbeque areas, and outdoor seating. Two smaller, passive, recreation courtyards
will be located along the east side of the structure facing South State College Boulevard with seating, picnic
areas, and landscaping. In addition, a pedestrian plaza will be located off the project’s street frontage on
South Metro Drive and include seating and landscaping.
The project is proposing a contemporary architectural style with street-level articulation along the South
Metro Drive and South State College Boulevard street frontages. Materials proposed include commercial
storefront glazing for the leasing office, decorative panels, and stucco in a variety of colors. The parking
structure located along the northern frontage, and visible from East Katella Avenue and South State College
Boulevard, will incorporate the proposed building massing, provide openings for ventilation that will
resemble windows, and include stucco in a variety of colors to screen the parking structure from view. The
majority of the structure is between 50 feet to 65 feet in height. The largest massing will be located at the
terminus of East Park Street and above the pedestrian plaza with a maximum height of 70 feet.
The project will provide 396 vehicular parking spaces within the six level above ground parking structure.
The AMC requires a minimum of 388 parking spaces for the proposed 257 residential units. Vehicular
access to the parking structure will be located on South Metro Drive, approximately 170 feet south of East
Katella Avenue.
Figure I-3
Conceptual Site Plan-Area E
Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 2021.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 9
Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339.
This environmental document is a checklist to identify whether Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report No. 339 (SEIR No. 339), including its subsequent addenda (see description of addenda and Table 1
below), adequately analyzed the potential impacts of the Project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and
that no further environmental review is necessary. SEIR No. 339 was prepared to address the
implementation of the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan (PTIP) and discretionary approvals
associated with the Approved Project: General Plan Amendment No. 2008‐00471, amendments to the
PTMLUP, amendments to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, Zoning Reclassification No.
2008‐00222, and the Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. SEIR No. 339 addressed the potential
impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems,
and greenhouse gas emissions. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
address significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Approved Project.
Nine Addenda have been previously prepared to address modifications to the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project. Table 1, SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table, provides a brief summary for each
project within the Platinum Triangle for which the City Council approved an addendum. The City Council
approved amendments to the land use assumptions in Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, in
conjunction with Addendum No. 2-6, through the approval of amendments to the Anaheim General Plan,
the PTMLUP, and PTMU Overlay Zone. These documents, as amended, currently permit development of
up to 17,501 residential units; 4,782,243 square feet of commercial uses; 13,659,103 square feet of office
uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone. In addition, in 2020,
the City Council approved a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Stadium
District Sub-Area A Project. This project creates the framework for the development of Sub-Area A of the
Stadium District of the PTMU Overlay Zone pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and the Applicant and a Master Site Plan; refer to Table 2, SCEA Summary
Table.
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
Addendum 1: Katella Avenue/
Interstate 5 Undercrossing
Improvements Project
April 2012
Widen Katella Avenue at the undercrossing with the I‐5 between Anaheim Way
and Manchester Avenue and to create a fourth through lane of traffic in each
direction of travel. Maintain dual left‐turn pockets at both intersections. The
project area spans approximately 1,000 feet along Katella Avenue, with an area
of disturbance encompassing approximately1.95 acres.
Addendum 2: Platinum
Gateway Project
December 2012
Develop a 4‐story wrap‐style residential building with 399 dwelling units, a 5‐
story parking structure, and public park on 7.01 acres. Amend the Anaheim
General Plan and the PTMLUP to increase the total number of dwelling units to
18,988 dwelling units; reduce the commercial square footage to 4,795,111 square
feet; reduce the office square footage to 4,131,103 square feet; and no change to
institutional uses: 1,500,000 square feet.
Addendum 3: Platinum Vista
Apartments Project
October 2014
Develop a 5‐story wrap‐style residential apartment building with 389 units and
a 6‐story parking structure (including one subterranean parking level). Amend
the Anaheim General Plan and the PTMLUP to allow up to19,027 dwelling units;
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 10
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
4,735,111 square feet of commercial uses; 14,131,103 square feet of office uses;
and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum 4: Amended
A‐Town Metro Master
Site Plan August 2015
Construct eight neighborhood Development Areas ranging in size from 3.1 acres
to 5.6 acres on the 43.2‐acre site. Develop between 1,400 and 1,746 residential
dwelling units; up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses; and two public
parks.
Addendum 5: Jefferson
Stadium Park Project
June 2016
Develop a mixed‐use community with 1,079 residential apartments; 14,600
square feet of retail uses; and a 1.11‐acre public park. Building 1is a 5‐story
wrap‐style building with 370 units; Building 2 is a 5‐storywrap‐style building
with 376 units; Building 3 is a 4‐story podium building with 333 units and 14,600
square feet of retail space. Amend the Anaheim General Plan to relocate and
combine two park sites into one park site. Amend the PTMLUP to allow for
18,909 dwelling units; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses; 14,340,522
square feet of office uses; and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses.
Addendum 6: LT Platinum
Center Development Project
September 2016
Mixed‐use development with 405 dwelling units; 433,000 gross square feet of
commercial uses; a 200‐room hotel; 77,000 gross square feet of office uses.
Amend the Anaheim General Plan and the PTMLUP to revise the district
boundaries to change the LT Platinum Center site from the Gateway District to
the Stadium District; reduce the maximum dwelling units to 17,348 units;
increase the maximum commercial uses to 4,782,243 square feet; reduce the
maximum office space to 9,180,747 square feet; and remove the designation of
a public park from the site.
Addendum 7: Gene Autry
Way and State College
Boulevard Improvements
Project
March 2017
Widen Gene Autry Way from four lanes to six lanes with medians and storm
drain and stormwater improvements; to widen the west side of State College
Boulevard between Gateway Office and Artisan Court to accommodate a
southbound right‐turn lane and a third through‐lane; and to make improvements
to the east side of the intersection of State College Boulevard at Gene Autry Way,
which is the west entrance to Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Angel Stadium).
Additionally, a new intersection on Gene Autry at Union Street would be
constructed to provide access to planned development areas.
Addendum 8: Orangewood
Avenue Improvements (From
State College Boulevard to
the Santa Ana River) and
Eastside of State College
Boulevard Improvements
(From Orangewood Avenue
to Artisan Court)
March 2018
Widen Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Dupont Drive and
from Dupont Drive to the Santa Ana River from four lanes to six lanes with the
addition of right-turn lanes. Widen State College Boulevard to four lanes
between Orangewood Avenue and Artisan Court; north of Artisan Court, the
outside lane would become a right-turn pocket into the Angel Stadium of
Anaheim parking lots. Road widening to add a new northbound right-turn lane
at the Orangewood Avenue Intersection with Rampart Street. Roadway
improvements (sidewalk, relocated utilities, landscape planters, block walls, etc.)
that were not considered in SEIR No. 339 are also analyzed.
Addendum 9: Orangewood
Avenue Improvements
(From the Santa Ana River to
East of SR-57) (under
preparation)
Widen Orangewood Avenue from a five‐lane roadway to a six‐lane divided
facility to provide expanded bicycle and pedestrian access from the Santa Ana
River to just east of State Route 57 (SR-57) at the SR-57/Orangewood Avenue
interchange. The Proposed Project would also include a water pipeline connection
in Orangewood Avenue right-of-way, generally beginning at Rampart Street and
ending to the east at Eckhoff Street. In addition, the Proposed Project includes a
change to the jurisdictional boundaries between the City of Anaheim and the City
of Orange, west of the western levee of the Santa Ana River, north and south or
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 11
Table 1
SEIR No. 339 Addenda Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
Orangewood Avenue. This proposed reorganization includes amendments to the
Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP, and other related
documents to reflect the new City boundary and potential future use of the
affected property.
Addendum 10: 710 E. Katella
General Plan, Zoning Map
and Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
Amendments (under
preparation)
Amend the Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP to
allow the development of up to 120 dwelling units at 710–818 East Katella
Avenue and 1815 South Lewis Street. Development of the project site would be
subject to the requirements of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU)
Overlay Zone, including but not limited to, subsequent City Council approval of
a Development Agreement.
Addendum 11: OC Vibe
Project
General Plan, Zoning Map
and Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan (PTMLUP)
Amendments (under
preparation)
Amend the Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Zoning Map, and PTMLUP to
allow the development of proposed new homes, shopping, dining, entertainment,
parks and open spaces around Honda Center and ARTIC transit center.
Table 2
SCEA Summary Table
Addendum Title Project Summary
SCEA: Stadium District
Sub-Area A Project
September 2020
The Stadium District Sub-Area A Project creates the framework for the
development of Sub-Area A of the Stadium District of the PTMU Overlay Zone
pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and the Applicant and a Master Site Plan to allow development of Sub-
Area of the Stadium District with up to the development intensities described.
Land Use
Stadium District Sub-Area A
Project
Residential (dwelling units) 5,175
Commercial (square feet) 1,750,000
Office (square feet) 2,700,000
Stadium (seats) 45,500
Public Parks (acres) 10-13
Fire Station One station on 1.5 acres
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 12
I. AESTHETICS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? £ £ £ R £
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, limitation trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
£ £ £ R £
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
£ £ £ R £
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle area is highly urbanized with industrial, commercial, and recreational uses, which do not exhibit any significant
geographic features or visual resources of importance. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 339 determined that the
overall boundaries of the Platinum Triangle do not contain any natural or undisturbed areas that provide undisturbed or unique vistas,
and/or that are officially recognized by a local, State, or federal agency.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no officially recognized local, State, or federal‐level scenic resources are located in the Platinum Triangle.
The only Officially Designated State Scenic Highway located close to the Platinum Triangle is State Route 91 (SR‐91) from State Route
55 (SR‐55) to east of the City limits, SEIR No. 339 concluded that the Platinum Triangle would not be easily visible due to distance and
sound walls. As there are no scenic resources located in the Platinum Triangle area, proposed development on Areas B and E
development would not directly impact a scenic resource. In addition, Area B development, eight stories, and Area E development, 5-
stories, would not obscure views of distant scenic resources due to intervening buildings and topography. Additionally, Areas B and E
developments would not be visible from the Officially Designated Scenic Highway segment of SR‐91, which is located over three miles
to the north, due to obstruction by nearby development and sound walls surrounding the highway. For these reasons, no impacts to
scenic resources would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings associated with the proposed
development in the Platinum Triangle, including the changes in residential and nonresidential land uses and modifications to the existing
circulation system. Findings in SEIR No. 339 confirmed that compliance with provisions of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan (PTMLUP) would result in the creation of individual projects that are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the
Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 discussed impacts related to shade and shadows, including shade and shadows potentially generated
by the medium‐ to high‐rise structures allowed in the Platinum Triangle with a typical building height of 100 feet, with some exceptions.
The SEIR concluded that impacts to the visual character or quality of the Platinum Triangle would be less than significant with the
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 1‐1, which require, prior to Final Site Plan approval, analysis of shade on properties
sensitive to shadows for individual projects proposed within the Platinum Triangle. The proposed buildings for Area B and Area E
would be approximately 100 feet in height and would be within the expected limits of the analysis provided in SEIR No. 339.
Many iconic buildings and structures exist in the area surrounding the Project Area that provide landmarks to orient residents and visitors
and provide the City with a visual image and aesthetic. Two examples provided in SEIR No. 339 include the large “A” outside Angel
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 13
Stadium of Anaheim and the Honda Center. Due to distance with intervening structures and topography, the proposed buildings for
Areas B and E would not create barriers to viewing or obscure visibility of prominent local landmarks from the Project Area.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed impacts related to the creation of light and glare. The buildout of the area would introduce many new sources of
nighttime illumination related to buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, roadways, and parks. The proposed developments for
Area B and Area E are consistent with the development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan density of 82 dwelling units
per net acre. The developments include common area improvements such as landscape walkways, recreation courtyards, passive
courtyards, pools, spas, sun decks and lounge areas. According to SEIR No.339, the light and glare impacts would be minimized through
compliance with the PTMLUP. Furthermore, the majority of lighting associated with the proposed development on Areas B and E would
be directed internal to each Project Site itself, away from neighboring land uses. Therefore, interior and exterior lights on the Project
Site would not shine directly onto light-sensitive uses and would not result in light trespass.
No changes in circumstances involving each proposed development at Areas B and E have occurred; therefore, these Projects would not
result in new impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial
importance is available now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
of the certification of SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are
now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts associated with aesthetics would occur because of the Project, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
£ £ £ R £
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act Contract? £ £ £ R £
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12222(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
£ £ £ R £
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? £ £ £ R £
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 14
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Local Importance in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity, including Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that the buildout of the PTMLUP would have no impact on agricultural resources and no mitigation was necessary. The 2014 Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the Project Areas B and E as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Additionally, there are no active
farming activities within the Project Areas B and E. Therefore, the development of Areas B and E, which have both been substantially
altered as a result of grading and past development, would not affect any Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance due to the extent of urbanization in the area. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339, and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no areas zoned for agriculture exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Additionally, no
lands covered by existing Williamson Act contracts are located within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the buildout
of the PTMLUP would have no impact on these agricultural resources. There are no areas zoned for agriculture or covered under
Williamson Act contracts within the Project Areas B and E. Therefore, the Projects would not impact land zoned for agricultural use or
covered by a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss, conversion, or rezoning of forestland. The Platinum Triangle is substantially
developed and is not suitable for forestry and/or timber resources. There is no zoning for forest land in the City of Anaheim and no areas
within the City classified as forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526. The City of Anaheim has no land
zoned for forest or timberland, including Areas B and E and the surrounding area. Therefore, the Projects would not conflict with any
existing zoning for forest or timberland and would not cause rezoning of any forest or timberland. No impacts to forest or timberland
would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity
of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 did not contain a section analyzing the loss or conversion of forestland. However, the Platinum Triangle does not support
forestry and/or timber resources. The Project Sites are in a highly urbanized area and not zoned for forest or timberlands. Therefore, the
development of Areas B and E would not conflict with existing forest or timberland and would not cause loss or conversion of any forest
or timberland. No impacts to forest land would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The Projects would not result in new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest/timberlands are present in the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 determined that
no areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Additionally,
no existing Williamson Act contracts cover land within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 concluded that the buildout of the PTMLUP
would have no impact on these agricultural resources. No areas zoned for agriculture or utilized for agricultural activities exist in the
Platinum Triangle or surrounding vicinity. Therefore, the Projects would not impact agricultural practices or any agriculturally zoned
lands within the Project Areas B and E and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the conversion of Area B, a vacant, undeveloped property
to a mixed-use, and the conversion of Area E, a vacant undeveloped property to a residential use, would not result in new impacts or
impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available
now which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of
SEIR No. 339. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore,
no new impacts associated with agricultural and forest resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not
increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 15
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? £ £ £ R £
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
£ £ £ R £
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? £ £ £ R £
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
The Platinum Triangle is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses all of Orange County (County) and portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB regional emissions inventory is compiled by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SEIR No. 339 states that the
development of the PTMLUP would result in overall increased trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Platinum Triangle area due
to increased density of development. Although there would be an increase in trips and VMT locally, the development of the PTMLUP
would provide a net benefit to the SCAG region because it creates mixed‐ use residential development closer to employment centers.
This decreases average trip length because employment, services, and housing would all be in close proximity to each other. This also
reduces the need for the residents to travel long distances for commercial and entertainment centers. The Adopted PTMLUP was
determined to be consistent with SCAG’s strategies to reduce VMT in the region and was determined to be consistent with the 2007 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which was applicable to the PTMLUP. Therefore, the impacts relative to project consistency with
the AQMP are considered less than significant in SEIR No. 339.
SCAQMD has thresholds which are used to evaluate a project’s emissions and determine if there would be a potential significant impact
related to construction or operation of the project. SCAQMD suggests that lead agencies evaluate both regional and localized impacts
for the project. The City uses the thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as
updated in 2015). SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the PTMLUP would potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute to existing or future air quality violations. The construction and operational activities associated with the buildout of the
PTMLUP, including a 270 residential mixed-use on Area B and a 257 residential use on Area E, would result in a substantial increase
in short‐ and long‐term air pollutants. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 to reduce
the potential air quality impacts during construction and operation of future Platinum Triangle projects. The mitigation measures focus
on improving the efficiency of vehicles and require the use of materials in responsible ways to limit the release of pollutants that may
violate existing air quality standards for the Platinum Triangle area and the County during construction and operation. However, even
with these mitigation measures, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PTMLUP would potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the
criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (ozone
[O3], particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10], and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size [PM2.5]). SEIR No. 339
found that the construction and operational activities associated with the PTMLUP would create short‐ and long‐term pollutants
exceeding the regional significance thresholds established by SCAQMD, including PM10, PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOC),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX) from construction, and carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 from
operations. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified land use plan, would
result in a decrease in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the amount of pollutants emitted into the air basin
associated with long‐term, operations would be less than the emissions originally anticipated to occur as, which would result in
approximately 49 percent more (long‐term) pollutant emissions compared to the proposed Revised A‐Town Metro project because there
would be substantially less traffic. Potential impacts would be less when compared to the prior analysis of cumulative air quality impacts;
nonetheless, Project implementation would contribute to the significant cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, the SEIR No. 339
required incorporation of Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9 would be implemented to reduce significant
impacts as stated above. Even with Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9, however, the air quality impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 16
were determined to be significant and unavoidable; therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when
SEIR No. 339 was certified.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the implementation of the PTMLUP had the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. During construction, projects within the Platinum Triangle would create temporary emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, SOX,
PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 based
on the ambient pollutant concentration of each pollutant and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the Areas B and E are the occupants of multiple‐family residential dwelling units located north of Katella Avenue. Pollutants
resulting from project implementation would occur during the construction phase and following completion and occupancy/use of the
Sites. The emissions would comprise mostly of dust and particulate materials during the construction phase that would be dispersed in
the area of operations. Such emissions would be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by
the SCAQMD and SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 2‐1, 2‐2, 2‐3, 2‐4, 2‐ 5, 2‐6, 2‐7, 2‐8, and 2‐9.
In addition, during the operation of the PTMLUP, sensitive land uses, including residential and recreational uses, would be located near
major pollutant sources, including Interstate 5 (I‐5) and State Route 57 (SR‐57). However, the A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan
project area is located beyond the 500‐foot freeway buffer area. Furthermore, there is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation
congestion and CO impacts since exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO, which is a localized gas that
dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based
on the proposed modified land use plan would result in a decrease in the number of vehicles generated at local intersections within the
vicinity of Areas B and E. Further, the proportion of project‐related vehicle trips is small in relation to the volume of traffic at local
intersections. Therefore, CO concentrations at the critical intersections would not be exceeded based on buildout of the Platinum Triangle
as previously approved and because vehicle trips would be reduced, the development of Areas B and E would also not contribute to a
CO concentration exceedance at the key study intersection and would not, therefore, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations at those intersections.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that the odors generated during construction would dissipate before reaching sensitive receptors. An occasional
“whiff” of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks on public roadways may result; however, SEIR No. 339 concluded that
these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the industrial land uses within the Platinum Triangle would generally be non‐
odorous. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, “Nuisance,” would safeguard the community from any odors from food preparation in
restaurants and the residential uses.
Land uses that result in or create objectionable odors typically include agriculture (e.g., livestock and farming), wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, etc. Some industrial uses are located west of the A‐Town
Metro; including a gas station located directly north of Area E. However, as indicated in SEIR No. 339, odors generated by land uses
within the Platinum Triangle must comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the generation of odors that cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of people. SEIR
No. 339 found that odor impacts from placement of new residential land uses near existing odor generators would be less than significant
with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2‐ 10, which requires odor assessment for projects that would be located within 1,000 feet
of an existing industrial facility.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new air
quality impacts would occur as a result of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 17
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulation, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
£ £ £ R £
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
£ £ £ R £
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
£ £ £ R £
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
£ £ £ R £
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is a built‐out environment with no natural resources and no native biological
resources reside within the area, including on Areas B and E. Although the Project Site are both currently undeveloped, they were
previously developed with commercial uses that have been removed. At the present time, the Sites areas devoid of any native plant or
animal species. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special‐ status species would occur, and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special‐status
species. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to biological resources identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur and no mitigation
was necessary. No new significant biological resources are identified in the Anaheim General Plan either for the Sites or for the
immediate Project Area, which is highly urbanized. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the
Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain wetlands. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated
with federally protect wetlands would occur and no mitigation was necessary. Areas B and E are partially covered with impervious
surfaces in the form of streets that have been constructed as part of the approved master plan of development for A‐Town Metro. The
Project Area is urban and developed and does not contain federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no
mitigation is necessary. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR
No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle area does not contain areas associated with wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Areas
B and E are in an area of the City that is extensively urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and/or native species. The Sites have been
significantly altered and previously supported commercial land uses, which have since been removed in anticipation of buildout of the
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 18
Platinum Triangle and, specifically, the development of the A‐Town Metro land use plan. SEIR No. 339 found no impacts associated
with migratory wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites would occur, and no mitigation was necessary. The Projects would
not expand the area of the Platinum Triangle or be located outside the original Project Area. In addition, the Project Area does not provide
suitable native wildlife nursery habitat.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP was not subject to a tree preservation ordinance or other local regulation protecting
biological resources. As indicated above, no new significant or important biological resources, including native trees, exist on Areas B
or E. While the existing remnant landscaping would be eliminated as a result of project implementation (i.e., construction of the up to
270 dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of retail commercial on Area B and of 257 dwelling units on Area E), the landscape
concept plans prepared for the Projects would offset the loss of any existing non‐native landscape species. Similarly, the Projects would
be designed to accommodate landscaping that complements the proposed residential and retail/commercial developments, as well as the
existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. SEIR No. 339 found that no impacts associated with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources would occur, and no mitigation was necessary.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle is not within a plan area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP); or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. SEIR No. 339 found that no
impacts associated with an HCP; NCCP; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would occur, and no
mitigation was necessary. The Project Area is not within a plan area of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan. No impacts to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on biological resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to in
§15064.5?
£ £ £ R £
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to 15064.5?
£ £ £ R £
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? £ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any historical resources as defined by State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. The Platinum Triangle is not located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District and none of the structures within the
Platinum Triangle were identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan.
Areas B and E are currently undeveloped and do not support any existing structures; there are no above‐ground historic resources located
within the Project Sites, although two historic resources were identified within a one‐half mile radius of the A‐Town Metro area. Neither
the Project Sites nor the surrounding properties are identified as historic resources in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, no known
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 19
historic archaeological sites within the Platinum Triangle were identified. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts would occur, and
no mitigation was necessary.
Although Areas B and E have been previously developed with commercial uses, because it is possible that previously unidentified
archaeological artifacts could be present within the area, each future project considered for approval within the Platinum Triangle area,
by the City would be required to protect these resources as required under the mitigation measures. The discovery of buried resources
within the Project Site would not contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently,
impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. SEIR No. 339 determined that no defined historical resources
or structures exist in the Platinum Triangle, which includes the Areas B and E. The Projects would not impact new locations with
potential historical resources or structures beyond those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources would
occur and no mitigation is required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle does not contain any known archaeological resources, including Areas B and E.
The Project Sites are located within an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim and have been previously graded and developed/improved.
Any near‐surface archaeological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and/or destroyed by prior
development activities. SEIR No. 339 did not identify any impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, and no mitigation
was required. The Projects would not impact new locations with the potential to contain archaeological resources beyond those analyzed
for the PTMLUP. The Project Area has already been disturbed, and the potential for any subsurface cultural resources to be discovered
during construction is remote. Nonetheless, consistent with existing regulatory requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 14, Part 15064.5(f), and Public Resources Code Section 20182, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources (sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find would
immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending on the significance of the
find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional
work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Compliance with existing
regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No.
339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on historical resources or structures would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339.
VI. ENERGY – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
£ £ R £ £
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? £ £ R £ £
Narrative Summary: Less-than-significant Impact.
SEIR No. 339 did not analyze Energy as the City Council certified the document before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the
new standard.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 20
Regulatory Framework
California State Building Regulation
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-
residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in
June 1977 and most recently revised in 2019 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design
of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2016 Standards for
new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 standards work to achieve zero
net energy for newly constructed residential buildings throughout California. The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in
new homes by more than 50 percent and require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family
buildings of three stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and
nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings
will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be seven percent more energy
efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less
energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first
green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part
of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019
CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2020.
Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40
percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB 350 requirement of 45 percent renewable
energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50 percent by 2026 and raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50 percent to 60
percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52
percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy
resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent
of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions
elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Local Regulation
The City’s Green Element outlines goals and policies conserve energy during the construction and operation of buildings. Key goals and
policies from the Green Element regarding new construction are:
• Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.
Policy 15.2(1): Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development (e.g.,
orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape
structures to shade buildings).
Policy 15.2(2): Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City.
• Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.
Policy 17.1(1): Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural
ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.
During construction, the Projects would utilize main forms of available energy supply: electricity, natural gas, and oil. Construction of
the Projects in Areas B and E would result in energy consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used
for dust control, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities that require electrical power. Construction
activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. However, construction activities would also consume energy in the
form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off- road construction vehicles and equipment, round-trip construction worker
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 21
travel to the Project Sites (Areas B and E), and delivery and haul truck trips. Construction activities would comply with CARB’s “In-
Use Off- Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation”, which limits engine idling times to reduce harmful emissions and reduce wasteful
consumption of petroleum-based fuel. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand
during the Projects’ construction to the extent feasible, and Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Therefore, during construction no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Area B Project is a mixed-use residential project and Area E is a residential project. Both Site intensities and uses have been
considered in SEIR No. 339 and would be implemented pursuant the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. The Projects would comply with
State and Local regulations, in compliance with building codes, as they pertain to energy efficiency, therefore during operation, a less-
than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the Project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving?
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
£ £ £ R £
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? £ £ £ R £
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? £ £ £ R £
iv. Landslides? £ £ £ R £
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? £ £ £ R £
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 caused in whole or in part by the project’s
exacerbation of the existing environmental
conditions?
£ £ £ R £
d. Be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 22
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
£ £ £ R £
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel B, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 28, 2020 (Appendix A.1)
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel E, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 30, 2020 (Appendix A.2).
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Map does not delineate any known earthquake faults within the A‐Town Metro
property, Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts associated with earthquake fault rupture would occur and no mitigation
was necessary. The Project Area is not within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, any known active faults do not
underlie the Project Area. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects proposed in Areas B and E
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that development pursuant to the PTMLUP might expose occupants to impacts from earthquakes, including strong
seismic ground shaking. The closest faults are the Puente Hills and San Joaquin Hills Thrust Faults located at distances of about 9.1 and
9.3 miles from the A‐Town Metro property, respectively. The closest active faults to the Project Sites with the potential for surface fault
rupture are the Whittier-Elsinore fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ), located approximately 8.9 and10.3 miles from the
Sites, respectively. Due to the large distances of active faults from the Sites, ground surface rupture is not a significant hazard. SEIR No.
339 concluded that impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking were less than significant with compliance with building
standards during final engineering of proposed projects within the Platinum Triangle. As with all Southern California, the Areas B and
E have the potential for strong seismic shaking. Design of the Projects would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the
California Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, seismic‐related impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The Projects proposed for Areas B and E would not result in new significant impacts
or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than
significant. There is no groundwater than goes to a depth greater than 11.5 feet below the surface within the Platinum Triangle area and
the probability for liquefaction impacts is low. Because impacts related to seismic‐related ground failure were less than significant, no
mitigation was required. The A‐Town Metro property, including Areas B and E, are not within an area with liquefaction potential in the
Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). In addition, groundwater was not
encountered in subsurface, from the investigation completed by Leighton and Associates, to the maximum depth explored of 51½ feet
below ground surface (bgs). According to groundwater information obtained through the California Geological Survey (CGS) and
presented in the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 1997), the historically shallowest groundwater depth
in the vicinity of the Project Sites is greater than 50 feet bgs. Based on prior explorations performed at the overall A-Town site in 2005,
groundwater was encountered at the Project Sites at a depth of approximately 82 feet bgs. Therefore, there is a low probability for
liquefaction impacts to occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the Platinum Triangle, which includes the A‐Town Metro property, does not contain any major slopes on or in
the immediate vicinity and concluded that no impacts associated with landslides would occur and no mitigation was necessary. There
are no major hillsides or slopes within the Project Area. The Areas B and E are not within an area with earthquake‐ induced landslide
potential in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure S‐3, Seismic and Geologic Hazards). Therefore, no impacts
related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that soils in the Platinum Triangle have a slight erosion potential. Adherence to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 23
(SWPPP) for erosion control, grading, and soil remediation during the grading and construction phase and a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) that also identifies measures to minimize the long‐term potential for erosion and loss of soil would reduce erosion impacts
to a less than significant level. Because impacts related to erosion were less than significant, no mitigation was required. Construction of
the Projects would adhere to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP that would be prepared for each of the
Projects would identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and pollutant transport during the construction phase.
Similarly, BMPs prescribed in the WQMP would also minimize potential erosion and pollutant transport following development of the
Areas B and E as proposed. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of construction BMPs would ensure
that impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would
not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the geologic composition of the Platinum Triangle is relatively stable because the soil units underlying the
Platinum Triangle are generally medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of
silt. By following the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in these site‐specific
geotechnical studies, the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated
with a geologic unit or unstable soil in SEIR No. 339 were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
Certified engineered fill of variable thickness overlying Quaternary-age young alluvial fan deposits currently underlie Areas B and E. .
The existing near-surface artificial fill soils encountered in exploratory borings for Area B range in thickness from nominal less than a
foot to 16½ feet below existing grade across the Project Site. The characterization of these soils are olive brown to dark brown, moist to
very moist, sandy silt, silty sand, clayey sand and sand with varying rock and manmade fragments. The existing near-surface artificial
fill soils encountered in one of the borings for Area E to an approximate depth of seven feet below ground surface (bgs) are understood
to have been placed under the observation and testing. These soils are characterized as gray to brown, dry to moist, silty sand and sandy
gravel, with varying rock and manmade fragments. The existing near-surface artificial fill soils encountered in exploratory borings
located outside of above-mentioned area are considered undocumented, and unsuitable for foundation support due to the uncontrolled
nature of these fill soils during placement. In addition, a large stockpile of soil up to approximately three to five feet in height exists in
the southern portion of the Area E. The undocumented artificial fill materials encountered in the borings range in thickness from
approximately five to 7½ feet bgs across the Project Site. These soils are characterized as brown, orange, brown, olive brown and reddish
brown, dry to moist, silty clay, clayey silt, silty sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with varying rock and concrete fragments. The
Quaternary age young alluvial fan deposits encountered beneath the fill materials for both Sites B and E in exploratory borings generally
consist of yellow brown to gray, brown, poorly to well graded moist, sand and silty sand with thin beds or laminations of silt and clay.
The soils for Areas B and E are both generally of low compressibility. Therefore, due to the nature of the soils and historic groundwater
table that is 50 feet or great below ground surface, liquefaction potential is considered to be low for both Areas B and E.
Furthermore, the Sites are devoid of steep slopes that would be subject to failure. Project design and construction would comply with the
requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Report. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For
this reason, the impacts associated with soil instability would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
As identified in SEIR No. 339, the near‐surface soils within the Platinum Triangle area, which includes Areas B and E, are generally
medium‐dense, fine, and fine‐to‐medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. The expansion potential for
these soils is considered low. However, for Area E, although variance in expansion potential of on-site fill (certified and undocumented)
soil does exist at the Project Site, expansive soils are not anticipated to impact the proposed construction. Additional testing should be
performed upon completion of Site grading and excavation to confirm the expansion potential. Additionally, any design or construction
for projects in the Platinum Triangle would adhere to the California Building Code and the Anaheim Municipal Code, thereby decreasing
the risk associated with development on expansive soils. SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts associated with expansive soils would be
less than significant. Zones of medium dense clean sands are presented above the water table and as such seismic compaction may result
in settlement of about 0.5 to 1 inch at the Sites. Areas B and E have no known history of subsidence and are both generally level. Design
of the Projects would adhere to any applicable regulations contained in the California Building Code, the Anaheim Municipal Code, and
the Uniform Building Code, as well as the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure the soils would be stable for building and risks of incident would be low. For this reason, the impacts associated with
expansive soils would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts over those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that projects within the Platinum Triangle would not utilize septic tanks or alternative sewer systems. There
would be no impact for soils supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems and no mitigation was required. Areas B and
E and environs are currently served by a sanitary sewer system, which would continue to serve the Projects. The Projects would not add
septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems to the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts related to alternative wastewater
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 24
disposal systems would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the
severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
relative to geology and soils would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
£ £ £ R £
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would create a substantial increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing
conditions. The SEIR identified mitigation measures for solid waste: 2‐3, 10‐18, 10‐19, 10‐20; transportation and motor vehicles: 2‐5,
9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐12, 9‐14; energy efficiency: 2‐6, 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐24; and water conservation and efficiency: 10‐7, 10‐9, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐
14. These mitigation measures would reduce GHGs to the greatest extent feasible; however, the PTMLUP would still generate a
substantial increase in GHG emissions when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the GHG emission generated by the PTMLUP
were determined to be significant and unavoidable, requiring the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
address significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project.
Area B Project would consist of 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying 505
square feet of outdoor dining space. The proposed number of dwelling units and ground floor retail space are consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area B, which allows for a range of 165 to 281 dwelling
units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Along with the mixed-use building and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, a
co-working space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping, seating, fire pit area,
and two meeting rooms. Area E Project would consist of 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area
E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units, implementation of the Project
would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range
of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential building and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include a main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and
barbeque areas and two passive courtyards located off State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
Addendum No. 4, which includes revisions to Areas B and E, involves an overall decrease in the number of residential units and
retail/commercial floor area when compared to the approved Master Plan for the subject properties. Specifically, implementation of the
Addendum No. 4 would result in the development of a maximum of 1,746 condominiums and apartment units, which equates to a
reduction of 935 dwelling units based on the maximum of 2,681 dwelling units approved for the same A‐Town Metro area when the
PTMLUP was adopted. In addition, the Addendum No. 4 would allow up to 50,000 square feet of retail/commercial floor area, which
is 100,000 square feet less than the 150,000 square feet currently permitted,r under the approved Master Plan. The revised A-Town
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 25
Metro Master Plan, as described in Addendum No. 4, would generate a total of 13,746 trips per day compared to the 26,855 trips per day
generated by the approved A-Town Metro Master Site Plan in SEIR No. 339. Therefore, GHG emissions from vehicle trips would be
reduced by approximately 49 percent. In addition, the revised A-Town Metro Master Site Plan, which includes Areas B and E, would
generate less demand for utilities, including natural gas, electricity, and water. This decrease in both vehicular trips and demand for
utilities would result in a reduction in GHG emissions.
SEIR No. 339 determined that full implementation of the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Scoping Plan measures would reduce
emissions produced by the PTMLUP by 35 percent. Implementing these measures along with the statewide GHG reduction measures
for electricity producers, vehicles, fuel, and the cap‐and‐trade program would reduce the project emissions consistent with the GHG 30
percent reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in
the Scoping Plan. SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Implementation of the Projects would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions as a result of the reduction in overall residential
dwelling units and commercial development, compared to the approved A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan, which would further
reduce the total Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan emissions presented in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, the Projects would follow
the same regulations and plan measures for GHG reduction of at least 30 percent. Therefore, the Projects would not conflict with
applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
from GHG generation would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No.
339.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
£ £ £ R £
b. Create 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 £
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
£ £ £ R £
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would exacerbate the current environmental
conditions so as to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 26
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
£ £ £ R £
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
£ £ £ R £
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 identified that many businesses that operate within the Platinum Triangle use various hazardous materials. The PTMLUP
would continue to allow the use of hazardous materials in the operation of these businesses, as the Anaheim General Plan designates the
northern part of the Platinum Triangle for industrial land use. All businesses in the area must seek permits for hazardous materials and
maintain records of hazardous material storage, use, and disposal. Implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in a change in the
frequency of use of hazardous materials in the Platinum Triangle and would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation was
required.
Neither Area B Project, a mixed-use residential development, nor Area E Project, a residential development, would not contribute to
additional hazardous material usage during construction and operation. During construction, hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials typically associated with construction activities would be routinely transported and used in the Project Areas. These hazardous
materials could include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. The
transport, use, and handling of these materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with project construction. Equipment
maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the NPDES. In addition, trash enclosures are
required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given
the nature of the Projects in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials would
not result in undue risk to construction workers on the Sites or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous
materials on the Sites and in conjunction with the Projects would be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small
quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential and retail/commercial
properties, on‐going operation of Areas B and E for planned land uses within the Project Sites would not result in the storage and/or use
of hazardous materials that would rise to the level of creating a potentially significant adverse impact.
SEIR No. 339 identified that development within the Platinum Triangle would not create a significant hazard to the environment through
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, existing federal and State regulations that govern hazardous material
and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact was determined to be less
than significant, and no mitigation was required. The area comprising the Project Sites previously supported commercial development.
However, the prior developments have been demolished and the Sites are currently undeveloped with the exception of some infrastructure
facilities (e.g., roads) intended to accommodate future development of the Project Areas. No potentially hazardous groundwater and/or
soils conditions are known to exist within the limits of the Project Areas that would result in the release of hazardous materials from the
Sites. Furthermore, Area B Project, a mixed-use residential development, and Area E Project, a residential development, would not
increase the usage of hazardous materials during operation and would therefore not increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Impacts related to the reasonably foreseeable upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that State and federal rules regulating the use and handling of hazardous materials would ensure that users
comply with permitting programs and restrict the use of unauthorized hazardous materials. The PTMLUP would not result in adverse
effects to the school population because new hazardous materials would not be introduced into the environment. SEIR No. 339
determined that hazardous waste impacts to schools were less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Specific to Areas B and
E, although the Paul Revere Elementary School at 140 W. Guinida Lane (northwest of the project site) and the Ponderosa Elementary
School at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue (southwest of the project site) are within the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 27
area, neither of these schools is located within one‐quarter mile of the Project Areas. Additionally, the Anaheim City Unified School
District operates the Family Oasis at 131 W. Midway Drive and the Facilities and Operations Center at 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard.
These facilities, which are operated by the school district, are also beyond one‐quarter mile of the Project Sites. Nonetheless, as indicated
previously, use or handling of hazardous materials or substances within the Project Areas would comply with appropriate state and
federal rules and regulations through the requisite permitting process. No unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed.
Furthermore, with the reduction in the amount of future development as outlined in Addendum No. 4 for the A‐Town Metro component
of the Platinum Triangle, construction‐related pollutant emissions, including particulates and related contaminants, would also be
reduced. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 relied on the database record searches for the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) No. 321 in 1999 and FEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that had potential to pose environmental hazards inside
the Platinum Triangle and nearby areas. Most of these properties were classified as “closed” action status and required no further
remediation, and some were undergoing remediation at the time of analysis. Any identified hazardous materials would be handled in a
manner consistent with State California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and
California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. In addition, property owners/developers would prepare a Phase I Site Assessment
for the proposed project site. Any properties with an “open” action status due to identified hazardous concerns would be required to
address the hazardous concern and obtain a “no‐further‐action” status from the applicable oversight agency. SEIR No. 339 concluded
that the development of the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, would not create a significant hazard to the environment
through the release of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces
Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, no impacts related to airport land use plans would occur and no mitigation
was required. There are two public airports in Orange County: John Wayne Airport (JWA), located approximately 8.25 miles south of
the site and Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA), which is located 7.5 miles to the north. Based on the location of the airports, the subject
properties are not located within a two‐mile radius of either airport and, therefore, is neither subject to nor affected by an adopted airport
land use plan. Therefore, no safety hazard impacts related to an airport would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects
would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified two heliports located at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center and the North Net Training Center.
In addition, the Anaheim Police Department (APD) conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of
Anaheim. The flight paths for all these sites are located away from the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E; therefore, SEIR No.
339 determined that the PTMLUP would present a less than significant impact to the heliports and no mitigation was required. The
Projects would not include any tall structures that could interfere with flight paths of the nearby heliports. Therefore, no impacts
associated with private airport safety hazards would occur and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the City’s emergency preparedness plan complied with State law and interfaced with other cities and
counties within Southern California. The City also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi‐agency responses to disasters. SEIR No. 339 noted
that the PTMLUP would intensify development densities in the area. As outlined in Addendum No. 4 for the A‐Town Metro component
of the Platinum Triangle, Project implementation would result in a reduction in development densities within the Project Area.
Regardless, new development would be required to accommodate emergency vehicles in addition to other measures prescribed in to
ensure adequate emergency response and operation. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 identified that the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, contains no undeveloped wildland areas within its
boundaries or in adjacent areas. The PTMLUP would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires. Because no impacts related to wildlands would occur, no mitigation was required. The areas within and adjacent to the
Project Areas are urban and developed. No wildland areas susceptible to fires exist in the Project Areas or adjacent areas. No impacts
related to wildland fires would occur and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts
or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 28
regarding hazardous materials would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
£ £ £ R £
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
£ £ £ R £
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
£ £ £ R £
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site; £ £ £ R £
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
£ £ £ R £
iii. 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; or
£ £ £ R £
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? £ £ £ R £
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation? £ £ £ R £
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel B, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 28, 2020 (Appendix A.1)
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 29
• Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, A-Town Parcel E, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., October 30, 2020 (Appendix A.2)
• Preliminary Hydrology Analysis For A-Town Tract 17703, Lot 1 – Area B, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, Hunsaker &
Associates Irvine, Inc., September 21, 2021 (Appendix B.1)
• Preliminary Hydrology Analysis For A-Town Tract 17703, Lot 4 – Area E, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, Hunsaker &
Associates Irvine, Inc., June 3, 2021 (Appendix B.2)
• Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, A-Town – Development Area “B”, Tract No. 17703, Lot 1, Permit No.
OTH2021-01348, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., November 1, 2021 (Appendix C.1)
• Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, A-Town – Development Area “E”, Tract No. 17703, Lot $, Permit No.
OTH2021-01350, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Revised November 1, 2021 (Appendix C.2)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface. During grading and
construction activities, there would be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small quantities of pollutants into the
stormwater runoff. However, SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP would comply with current water quality regulations, including the
City Grading Ordinance, the Construction General Permit, the County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the City
of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), as required by Mitigation
Measure 3‐2. This would include preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, and a WQMP and implementation of
construction and operational BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
SEIR No. 339 found that the increased development intensities within the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, would result in
additional demands on groundwater supplies. To meet projected water demand, the City would upgrade the initial production rate of a
previously proposed new water well in the Platinum Triangle and would drill an additional new well at a location to be determined. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that construction of an additional groundwater well in Anaheim would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
due to the location of the new water well in relation to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Basin. SEIR No. 339
concluded that impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory
requirements and standard conditions of approval. In addition, an updated 2009 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by
Psomas that assessed the availability of domestic water since the approval of the PTMLUP. Since preparation of the 2009 WSA, the
OCWD has completed the expansion of its Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) from 75 to 100 million gallons per day. This
expansion increases the reliability of the Orange County Basin of which Anaheim has historically obtained approximately 70 percent of
its water supply. Furthermore, groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 50 feet below existing surface. Based on soils investigation
conducted for the overall A-Town improvements, which includes Areas B and E, groundwater is estimated at depths greater than 65’
below ground surface. The Projects would not be excavating to depths greater than 50 feet below existing surface and would not interfere
with groundwater. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially increase the amount of
impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the same as under existing conditions. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)
would ensure that property owners/developers would properly convey and discharge runoff. Furthermore, no stream or river exists within
the limits of the A‐Town Metro Master Plan, including Areas B and E. As previously indicated, the existing Sites had been significantly
altered in order to support commercial development that previously existed. Although project implementation would result in the
conversion of the properties from undeveloped Sites to a mixed‐use development on Area B and a residential development on Area E
and would result in alterations that would affect existing drainage conditions, it is anticipated that the existing surface drainage conditions
and characteristics would generally be maintained. Although additional grading and landform alteration necessary to prepare the Sites
for development could result in some erosion during that phase of construction, BMPs would be implemented pursuant to a SWPPP in
order to prevent downstream transport of sediments resulting from site grading. BMPs are required pursuant to the NPDES and also
prescribed by the City and reflected in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, Grading Plans prepared for proposed development must include an
approved drainage and erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. Additionally,
development sites that encompass an area of 1.0 acre or greater would be subject to compliance with the NPDES program’s General
Construction Permit requirements and consequently the development and implementation of an SWPPP as prescribed by the City of
Anaheim. In addition, the proposed project would be in compliance with the City’s grading and excavation ordinance, which would
ensure minimal topsoil loss from potential erosion. As stipulated in that document, the property owner/developer has prepared a WQMP
to submit to the RWQCB, in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 30
Management Plan (refer to Appendix C). The SWPPP, in conjunction with the WQMP, describes the structural and nonstructural BMPs
that would be implemented during construction (short‐term) within the Project Areas as well as BMPs for long‐term operation of the
Project Areas. Long‐term measures include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage,
designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. Implementation of
the BMPs ensure that potential erosion and siltation would not be transported downstream and, therefore, would not adversely affect
downstream drainage features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because SEIR No. 339 determined that these impacts
were less than significant, no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 noted that the PTMLUP involved redevelopment of existing land uses and would not substantially increase the amount of
impervious surface area. As a result, the runoff rates were expected to remain approximately the same as under existing conditions. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with the design requirements of the City and the OCFCD would ensure that property
owners/developers properly convey and discharge runoff as appropriate. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 determined that impacts would be
less than significant. It should be noted that the A‐Town Metro property, which includes Areas B and E, has been extensively altered as
a result of past grading and development that occurred on the Sites. No natural drainage course exists due to the extent of alteration to
the Sites and surrounding area within the drainage area. In the pre‐project condition, runoff from the graded pad areas is contained
within each paid and allowed to infiltrate into underlying soils. Runoff from Area B is retained on-site and any overflows discharging to
the existing storm drain system in Westside Drive and Market Street and conveyed westerly to the existing storm drain facility in Lewis
Street (County Facility No. C05P21). Runoff from Area E is retained on-site, with any overflows discharging to the existing storm drain
system in Metro Drive, then connect to Katella Avenue Runoff from both Areas B and E then flow to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg
Channel (County Facility No. C05) and Haster Retarding Basin (County Facility No. C05B02). Further downstream receiving waters
include Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay. The conditions do not change the conclusion of SIER No. 339
regarding runoff at the Project Sites.
As discussed in the WQMPs for each Project Area (B and E) (refer to Appendix C), each Project would be responsible for incorporating
Low Impact Development (LID) principles and BMPs into design features and evaluating LID measures in the following treatment
hierarchy: infiltration, evapo‐transpiration, harvest/reuse and bio‐treatment. In the proposed condition, runoff conveyance from Area B
would occur in a proposed 18” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in a northerly direction to the existing storm drain facility in Katella
Avenue. Runoff produced from the southern portion of Area E would drain toward the west and confluence with Area F, and then
discharge into the existing the 18” RCP located in Park Street. The remainder of Area E, the northern portion, would drain toward the
north and discharge into the existing 24” RCP located in Metro Drive. As discussed in more detail below, first flush flows produced
from the Areas B and E would be collected in the proposed inlets throughout the Sites, then diverted in the proposed diversion structures
to drain to proposed Modular Wetland Systems. Treated flows are then stored in the proposed storage vaults. Areas B and E LID measures
propose to retain water quality flows (non-storm water flows and the Design Capture Volume) on-site for each of the Project Sites
Drainage Management Areas (DMA) (refer to Appendix C for details). To meet the trash capture requirements of the Ocean Plan, each
of Area B and E’s on-site catch basins would be equipped with automatic retractable screens and connection pipe screens constructed of
corrosion resistant materials and meeting the “Full Capture” design criteria. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General Construction
Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects are less than significant. Compliance with the State General Construction
Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded that development would not create or
contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of pollutant runoff. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
was required. Furthermore, pursuant to the City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 09, Section 030.010, the Projects proposed
for Areas B and E are subject to the requirements of New Development and Significant Redevelopment projects to control urban runoff,
in accordance with County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). As indicated above, Project implementation would
not result in a significant increase in either the volume or velocity of surface water resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces.
The Projects’ drainage patterns design would maximize opportunities to convey stormwater to areas that would maximize the
effectiveness of the LID BMPs prescribed in the WQMP. It is important to note that the new NPDES permits impose more stringent
BMPs. As a result, water quality impacts would be expected to be much less that what was previously envisioned in the SEIR No. 339.
Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that compliance with the established regulations (e.g., the local grading ordinance, the State General Construction
Permit, and the County MS4 Permit) would ensure that effects would be less than significant. Compliance with the State General
Construction Permit was specified in Mitigation Measure 3‐2 from SEIR No. 339. SEIR No. 339 concluded that development would not
create or contribute runoff water that would substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Although conversion of the Sites as proposed would not result in any unique or
unusual water quality impacts, site preparation, grading and construction could result in some erosion potential and the potential for a
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 31
discharge of silt and other pollutants associated with the proposed development into the surface waters. However, as indicated above, it
would be necessary to implement a SWPPP, WQMP and related BMPs, to ensure that water quality impacts that may occur during
grading and construction are minimized. Implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP would avoid potentially significant
water quality impacts during the construction phase of Areas B and E. As a result, project‐related construction impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and remain within the analysis and conclusion of SEIR No. 339. In addition, non‐structural and structural
BMPs included in the WQMP would ensure that potential long‐term, post‐development water quality impacts are also avoided or reduced
to a less than significant level and would remain within the analysis and conclusion of SEIR No 339. Therefore, the Projects would not
result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zones A99 and X. The design of all aboveground structures would be at least 3 feet higher than the 100‐year flood zone
unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, and all structures below this level are required to be flood‐proofed. Therefore, impacts
related to the placement of housing within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was
required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. Because
the Project Area is not located within the 100‐year flood zone and protected by a levee, the Project Sites are not subject to flooding
associated with a 100‐year storm and future residential development would not be subject to a significant flood hazard. The existing
levee that provides flood protection in the area is maintained by the OCFCD and is regularly inspected to ensure that failure of the levee
does not occur. Therefore, impacts related to the placement of structures within a 100‐year flood zone were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is located within FEMA Flood Zones A99 and X. Although
the Project Area, including Areas B and E, is protected from flooding by a levee as indicated above, Project implementation would not
expose either people or structures to flood hazards as a result of the failure of either a dam or levee. The existing levee that provides
flood protection in the area is maintained by the OCFCD and is regularly inspected to ensure that failure of the levee does not occur.
Nonetheless, in the event of a failure that may result in flooding within the Project Area, the City would implement emergency operation
procedures necessary to protect the public health and welfare. Therefore, impacts related to flooding were determined to be less than
significant and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 found that the topography within the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, is flat and not subject to mudflow.
According to the City’s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are in the immediate vicinity of the Sites; therefore, no impacts from
seiches are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. The City of Anaheim is located well inland, away from the Orange County
coastline. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the Project Sites and vicinity.
Similarly, the Sites are essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic
activity or other instability to cause mud. Therefore, no impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur,
and no mitigation was required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in
SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
related to hydrology and water quality would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified
in SEIR No. 339.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? £ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 32
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to SEIR No. 339, the PTMLUP would increase the adopted development intensities and expand the Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay Zone, which would not physically divide an established community by creating physical or perceived barriers to movement
within a community. Across from the Area B, to north along Katella Avenue, are multi-family residential uses. To the east of the Area
B is Market Street and the future A-Town Development Area C and Aloe Greens, an A-Town public park. To the south of the Area B
is Meridian Street and the future A-Town Development Area H, comprised of multi-family residential uses, and Aloe Promenade, an A-
Town linear park, which is currently under construction. To the west of the Area B is Westside Drive and A-Town Development Area
A, comprised of multi-family residential uses. To the north of the Area E is a gas station with a convenience market. To the east of the
Area E is State College Boulevard and multi-family residential uses. To the south of the Area E is a commercial complex, affiliated
with Southern California Gas Company. To the west of the Area E is South Chris Lane and A-Town Development Area D and Area F,
both comprised of multi-family residential uses. Although the use of the Areas B and E would change from their present undeveloped
condition, Project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community because the
development located adjacent to the Sites are comprised of a variety of land uses. The future development of Areas B and E would be
compatible with the adjacent and nearby land uses. Furthermore, the Areas B and E do not contain any features or elements (e.g.,
roadways, channels, incompatible development, etc.) that would physically divide the existing residential neighborhoods in the Project
vicinity. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to division of an established community would occur and no
mitigation was required.
Area B would include development of 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying
505 square feet of outdoor dining space. The proposed number of dwelling units and ground floor retail space are consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area B, which allows for a range of 165 to 281 dwelling
units and 21,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial floor space. Area E would include development of 257 dwelling units. The A-
Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed
development of 257 units, implementation of the Area E Project would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development
areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan.
Although the Area E development requires a density transfer of 40 units, as cited above, future development proposed within the Project
Sites would be consistent with all the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, Land Use, Economic Development, and
Community Design Elements as reflected in Table 5.4‐1 in SEIR No. 339. The Projects would be compatible with surrounding land
uses and would comply with applicable design guidelines. Furthermore, any potential impacts previously identified in SEIR No. 339
would be avoided or lessened through the implementation of the mitigation measures applicable to the A‐Town Metro project prescribed
in SEIR No. 339. Finally, development within the A‐Town Metro Master Plan area would provide housing and employment
opportunities within the City, consistent with the long‐range goals and objectives. As a result, Projects would continue to achieve the
goals, objectives, and policies of the relevant adopted plans and programs of the Anaheim General Plan.
SEIR No. 339 also concluded that the PTMLUP would be inconsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Public Services and
Facilities Element Goal 8.1 because high‐rise residential towers proposed as part of the A‐Town Metro Project could potentially interview
with an existing Southern California Gas Company (SCG) microwave tower. No feasible mitigation was available to minimize the
potential conflict with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function; therefore, impacts were concluded to be significant and
unavoidable. This potential impact required the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address significant
and unavoidable impacts resulting from the implementation of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. Although Addendum
No. 4 includes a provision that would limit the maximum building height within the A‐Town Metro Master Plan area to 100 feet, due to
the location, elevation, and height of the SCG microwave tower, the reduction in the maximum building height proposed would not
lessen or eliminate that significant unavoidable adverse impact. Area B development would have a maximum building height of 75’10”
and Area E development would have a maximum building height of 65’6”. Thus, the inconsistency (and significant unavoidable impact)
previously cited in SEIR No. 339 would not change as a result of the Projects. As previously concluded in SEIR No. 339, this conflict
would remain significant and unavoidable; however, it is neither a new impact nor would it result in a more severe impact than previously
identified.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 33
In addition to the consistency determinations related to the Anaheim General Plan, the Projects would also be consistent with other
applicable regional plans and programs, including Compass/Growth visioning principles identified in SCAG’s Compass Blueprint 2%
Strategy, and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
According to SEIR No. 339, the Approved Project would not affect an HCP or an NCCP because the Platinum Triangle is not a part of
either of these plans. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts to HCPs or NCCPs would occur, and no mitigation was
required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
£ £ £ R £
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no mineral resources were in the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E. No loss of mineral resources
would occur, and no mitigation was required. The City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) does not identify
the Project Area as a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ‐2). The Projects would
not result in impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant
impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the City of Anaheim General Plan does not identify the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, as a
Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area. SEIR No. 339 concluded that no loss of mineral resources would occur, and no
mitigation was required. The Project Area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G‐3, Mineral Resource Map) as
a Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area or within MRZ‐2. Therefore, the Projects would not result in impacts to locally
important mineral resource recovery sites and no mitigation is required. The Projects would not result in new significant impacts or
increase the severity of impacts identified in SEIR No. 339.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 34
concerning loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would
not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
XIII. NOISE – Would the Project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
£ £ £ R £
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? £ £ £ R £
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Final Acoustical Report, A-Town Metro Master Land Use Plan Project – Parcel B, City of Anaheim, California, LSA, March
2021 (Appendix D.1)
• Final Acoustical Report, A-Town Metro Master Land Use Plan Project – Parcel E, City of Anaheim, California, LSA, March
2021 (Appendix D.2)
The Project Sites and their vicinities are located within an urban area that is developed with a variety of land uses, including single‐ and
multiple‐family residential, commercial, institutional, sports, transportation‐related, and other land uses. The primary existing ambient
noise sources in the Project Area are transportation facilities. Traffic on East Katella Avenue, Interstate-5 (I-5), and other adjacent
roadways is a steady source of ambient noise. Construction noise in the Project vicinities was also observed. Lastly, the Project Sites are
located between two event and entertainment centers that have regular firework shows during typical, non-pandemic conditions.
Disneyland, located northwest of the Project Sites, has nightly firework shows around 9:30 p.m. Angel Stadium has a firework show at
the end of Saturday night baseball games which occur March through September. It is also possible that other events at Angel Stadium
throughout the year may have firework shows, but those are not regularly scheduled. The loudest source of noise from the Saturday night
firework shows at Angel Stadium, fireworks associated with Disneyland would also be audible at the Project Sites.
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP had potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of City of Anaheim General Plan
and Noise Ordinance standards. The noise would primarily be derived from vehicular traffic, especially on Gene Autry Way from I‐5 to
State College Boulevard and on State College Boulevard from Orange Avenue to Gene Autry Drive. In addition, SEIR No. 339 found
that noise‐sensitive residential uses may be exposed to mobile and stationary‐source noise levels exceeding State and/or City standards.
Further, building facades exposed to greater than 69 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) would need to be improved architecturally to achieve a
45 dBA community noise equivalent interior noise level limit. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐2, 5‐3, 5‐4, 5‐5, 5‐7,
5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce noise impacts by requiring noise reduction improvements for residences and disclosure of abnormal noise
levels prior to approval of project construction, and restrictions on hours of operations for construction activities, as well as construction
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 35
equipment maintenance requirements. Even with these measures, the noise impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable,
and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
The Projects would require construction activities which would create temporarily increased noise levels for the surrounding areas. Noise
impacts during construction of the Projects were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a programmatic level. According to the City’s
Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. While the City exempts construction noise from the City noise standards at the property line when construction
occurs during these hours, construction noise would have the potential to generate noise levels well above the existing ambient noise
levels. The property owner/developer would implement Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce impacts related to
increased noise levels by requiring construction vehicles and equipment to operate at certain times of the day and with proper operating
procedures.
The Projects do not include an expansion of the roadway improvements previously identified in SEIR No. 339. Area B development
would include development 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with accompanying 505 square
feet of outdoor dining space with a residential density of 82 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the development allocation of the
A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements would
include landscape walkways, a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, a co-working
space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping, seating, fire pit area, and two meeting
rooms. Area E development would include 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site Plan for Development Area E allows for
a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units, implementation of the Project would require
a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or would not use the maximum range of dwelling
units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure, common area
improvements would include main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and
two passive courtyards located off State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based on the proposed modified land use plan would result in a decrease
in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, although Project implementation would result in a reduction in project‐
related traffic, both on a daily and peak hour basis, it is anticipated that potential noise impacts would be similar, albeit slightly reduced,
as the noise level projections along the roadway segments identified previously. Therefore, the Projects are not expected to generate
additional traffic noise beyond what was assumed in SEIR No. 339. Mitigation Measure 5‐1 in SEIR No. 339 would reduce impacts
associated with operational noise produced by the Projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 5‐1, 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10,
any improvements associated with the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts beyond
those analyzed in SEIR No. 339. Because residential development is proposed along the Katella Avenue corridor in the northern limits
of the property as well as along Gene Autry Way, to the south, these sensitive land uses would be subject to virtually the same noise level
exposure as identified and described in SEIR No. 339. Furthermore, other sensitive land uses along those same roadway segments would
also be adversely affected by the high roadway noise levels. Because the traffic generated by the Projects would not result in an increase
in noise levels but rather result in a potential decrease, the Projects as currently proposed would not result in any new significant impacts;
the potential impacts identified and described in SEIR No. 339 would not change significantly.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would potentially create excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The
vibration and noise would be created by construction activities in the vicinity of vibration‐sensitive land uses and could also impact any
housing located near the Amtrak/Metrolink Orange County Line. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measure 5‐5 to reduce groundborne
noise and vibration impacts from pile driving and Mitigation Measure 5‐6 to reduce the impacts created by groundborne vibration and
noise to vibration‐sensitive land uses in close proximity to the Orange County Line. However, even with these mitigation measures, the
impacts remained significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when SEIR No.
339 was certified.
Groundborne vibration would be generated by construction equipment during construction activities for the Projects, primarily during
the demolition, grading, and foundation phases of such development within the Areas B and E. Unless there are extremely large generators
of vibration, such as pile drivers, or receptors in close proximity to construction equipment, vibration is generally only perceptible at
structures when vibration rattles windows, picture frames, and other objects. The maximum levels of vibration that would be experienced
at vibration‐sensitive structures located 25 feet from the construction equipment would vary from about 60 VdB to over 110 VdB.
Adequate mitigation measures were prescribed to ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Project
implementation would not result in any new potentially significant noise impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would result in a substantial, permanent increase in the ambient traffic noise levels in the
vicinity of existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 established mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on ambient noise
levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 36
when SEIR No. 339 was certified. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified
land use plan, would result in a decrease in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, it would be anticipated that
some noise levels projected within the Project Area, including Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, would be reduced to some
degree based on the reduction in traffic. However, the noise levels throughout the Project Area would not be significantly reduced and
the potentially significant adverse noise impacts would remain despite the reduction in traffic associated with the Projects. Therefore,
where applicable, the Projects would be subject to the same mitigation measures identified in SEIR No. 339. Project implementation
would not result in any new potentially significant impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels created by construction near
existing noise‐sensitive receptors. SEIR No. 339 included Mitigation Measures 5‐7, 5‐8, 5‐9, and 5‐10 to reduce the temporary impacts
on ambient noise levels; however, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations when SEIR No. 339 was certified. Construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels in the
vicinity of Areas B and E. Noise impacts during construction of the Projects were previously addressed in SEIR No. 339 at a
programmatic level. There are existing residences west and north of Area B which could experience a temporary construction noise
nuisance. A construction noise mitigation plan must be developed and implemented for activity occurring within 200 feet of these
residences. The use of smaller equipment and notification of potentially affected residents of the duration of adjacent heavy equipment
operations can reduce construction noise. In order to reduce short‐term construction‐related noise impacts, several mitigation measures
were prescribed in SEIR No. 339, including MM 5‐7 through MM 5‐10. MM 5‐7 requires that the developer ensure that noise levels at
the property boundary not exceed 60 dBA between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., limit the hours of use of equipment that generates excessive
noise levels to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and properly maintain and employ muffler systems on all construction equipment. The other
measures include proper maintenance and tuning of all construction equipment (MM 5‐8), location of all stationary noise sources (e.g.,
generators, compressors, etc.) away from noise‐sensitive receptors (MM 5‐9), and restricting material delivery, soil haul trucks, and
equipment servicing to the hours set forth in Section 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (MM 5‐10). As concluded in SEIR No. 339,
construction‐related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation measures;
however, the proposed reduction in residential and commercial development would not result in any new or more severe construction‐
related noise impact than those identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, are not located in an area with an airport land use plan
for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. The people living in the Platinum Triangle would
not be exposed to excessive noise levels from air operations. SEIR No. 339 determined that no impacts related to airport land use plans
would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Area is not located in a zone that is regulated by an airport land use plan. The
Projects would not create additional exposure of people to excessive air traffic noise. No impacts related to airport noise would occur
and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Projects would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts
identified in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that no private airstrips are located within the City; however, two heliports are located near the Platinum
Triangle, including Areas B and E. In addition, APD conducts helicopter training exercises in the parking lot of Angel Stadium of
Anaheim. Although implementation of the Projects would place more people in the vicinity of heliport noise, the Projects would not
contribute to an increase in noise from these sources. SEIR No. 339 determined that the impact would be less than significant, and no
mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning noise impacts would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339. No mitigation is applicable.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 37
a. Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
£ £ £ R £
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would directly induce population growth by allowing additional residential development
and indirectly induce population growth by allowing additional nonresidential development in the Platinum Triangle. Area B
development would include development 270 dwelling units and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor retail space with
accompanying 505 square feet of outdoor dining space with a residential density of 82 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the
development allocation of the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential buildings and associated infrastructure,
common area improvements would include landscape walkways, a first-floor fitness center and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck
area with a clubroom, a co-working space, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck area with landscaping,
seating, fire pit area, and two meeting rooms. Area E development would include 257 dwelling units. The A-Town Metro Master Site
Plan for Development Area E allows for a range of 93 to 217 dwelling units. Therefore, with a proposed development of 257 units,
implementation of the Project would require a density transfer of 40 units from other development areas in A-Town that have not or
would not use the maximum range of dwelling units allocated by the A-Town Metro Master Site Plan. Along with the residential
buildings and associated infrastructure, common area improvements would include main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck,
lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and two passive courtyards located off of State College Boulevard with seating and
picnic areas with landscaped gardens.
Overall, as explained in Addendum No. 4, the buildout of A‐Town Metro based on the proposed modified land use plan, implementation
of the Projects would result in a reduction in the total number of dwelling units within the A‐Town Metro property when compared to
the impact analysis of the SEIR No. 339. The buildout of A‐Town Metro under Addendum No. 4 would allow for a maximum, of 1,746
apartments and condominiums, compared to 2,681 high density residential dwelling units currently approved for the same area. The
reduction of 935 dwelling units would reduce the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Platinum Triangle to 17,974 dwelling
units. As a result, the total population estimated for the Platinum Triangle would be reduced to 26,961 residents, compared to 28,364
estimated for the 18,909 approved dwelling units. In addition, the potential employment generated within the A‐Town Metro area would
also be reduced based on the reduction of 100,000 square feet of retail/commercial development, resulting in a maximum of 50,000
square feet for A‐Town Metro. The total number of jobs estimated for the Platinum Triangle would also be reduced from 300 to 100 as
a result of the reduction in the retail/commercial floor area currently proposed. Further, SEIR No. 339 concluded that buildout of the
Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, would result in a jobs/housing ratio more balanced when compared to the existing
conditions in the area. No impacts were identified, and no mitigation was required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that implementation of the PTMLUP would not displace any units of housing. Therefore, SEIR No. 339
determined that no impacts related to housing displacement would occur and no mitigation was required. The Project Sites do not support
housing at the present time. Project implementation includes the conversion of existing vacant properties to a high-density mixed-use
development on Area B and a high-density residential development for Area E, albeit at lower development intensities than previously
approved for A‐Town Metro. Implementation of the Projects would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling
units and would not require the provision of any replacement housing. Therefore, no new significant impacts to the City’s existing
housing inventory would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the PTMLUP would not displace any people and no construction of replacement housing would be
required. As indicated above, Project implementation would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling units, and
therefore, would not displace any residents in the City of Anaheim. Although the Projects would result in a reduction in the number of
dwelling units previously approved by the City for the A‐Town Metro property, the Projects do include the development of up to 527
apartments that would be added to the City’s inventory of housing, which would not only increase the City’s housing stock. Therefore,
SEIR No. 339 concluded that no impacts related to displacement of people would occur and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 38
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning loss of existing housing resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that
identified in SEIR No. 339.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objective for any of the following public
services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire Protection? £ £ £ R £
b. Police Protection? £ £ £ R £
c. Schools? £ £ £ R £
d. Parks? £ £ £ R £
e. Other Public Facilities? £ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Fire Protection: SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the
PTMLUP would delay Anaheim Fire District’s (AFD) response time for first engine response, increase demand for other services of the
AFD, and require additional fire facilities. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, no fire stations currently exist within the Revised Platinum
Triangle Expansion Project Area, however, the two nearest fire stations are located approximately one‐half mile from the Project Area.
Stadium Station #7 is located at 2222 East Ball Road, and Resort Station #3 is located at 1717 South Clementine. AFD has a plan to
construct three new fire stations to serve the Project Area. The first station, the Battalion Headquarters Station would be located along
Santa Cruz Street north of Orangewood Avenue, the second station would be in the north central area of the Platinum Triangle, and the
third station would be located at an undetermined location. Additional property taxes would be collected from the new residential projects
in the Platinum Triangle, including the developments on Areas B and E, and these would be used to cover the additional staffing needs.
In addition, the Public Safety Impact Fee would be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects within
the Platinum Triangle, which would provide funds for the construction of new fire facilities. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated
with fire protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐1 and 7‐2, which require
installation of fire sprinklers on new buildings and payment of impact fees as identified in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC), Chapter
17.36.
Police Protection: SEIR No. 339 determined that the higher‐density population and increased population capacity resulting from the
PTMLUP would require an increase in police facilities and staffing by APD. The two nearest police facilities are Main Station, located
3.5 miles west of the Platinum Triangle at 425 South Harbor Boulevard and South Station, located 3.6 miles west of the Platinum Triangle
at 1520 Disneyland Drive. SEIR No. 339 determined that a Public Safety Impact Fee, which would be applicable to the Projects, would
assist with the generation of funds for facilities and equipment for police activities. Additionally, the increase in property taxes collected
from the new developments, including Areas B and E, would be expected to cover staffing needs for the law enforcement. SEIR No. 339
found impacts associated with police protection facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7‐3,
7‐4, 7‐5, 7‐6, and 7‐7, which require APD to review plans for new developments and for property owners/developers to pay associated
police fees.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 39
Schools: SEIR No. 339 concluded that residential development within the Platinum Triangle would create approximately 4,018
additional elementary and middle school students in the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) and approximately 1,549 additional high
school students in the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Areas B and E would be within the attendance boundaries of
Paul Revere Elementary School, South Junior High School, and Katella High School. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, a demographic
consultant for the ACSD conducted a survey of current student generation rates for residential projects in Southern California that are
similar to the type of residential development that would occur in the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E, and found the Revised
Platinum Triangle Expansion Project would generate fewer students than the number of students expected to be generated from the
traditional housing type. Additionally, the serving elementary school is located outside the boundaries of the Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project Area; therefore, Project implementation would create a need for additional buses and supporting services. However,
the SEIR No. 339 found that developer payment of school fees levied by ACSD and AUHSD would reduce potential school‐ related
impacts to a less than significant level. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with schools to be less than significant with the
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 7‐8 and 7‐9, which require coordination with schools and payment of school fees.
Parks: SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for
parks and other recreational facilities. As mentioned above, Area B development would be comprised of 270 dwelling units and Area E
development would be comprised of 257 dwelling units. Common areas are proposed for Area B, along with a first-floor fitness center
and a pet spa area, a third-floor open deck area with a clubroom, landscaping, seating, pool, and jacuzzi, and a seventh-floor open deck
area with landscaping, seating, and fire pit area. The third-floor open-to-sky courtyard would be in the center of the building and an
additional open-to-sky courtyard would be located on the seventh floor. Additionally, common areas are proposed for Area E, along with
landscaped walkways, main recreation courtyard with a pool, spa, sun deck, lounge deck, outdoor dining, and barbeque areas and two
passive courtyards located from State College Boulevard with seating and picnic areas with landscaped gardens. Though both Projects
would provide open space and recreational facilities at both Sites, it is expected that residents would use local parks. Therefore,
implementation of the Projects would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater maintenance for park facilities. SEIR
No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC, establishing recreational space requirements for the
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure that adequate recreational space would be provided to support the population
growth in the Platinum Triangle area, including Areas B and E. With compliance with this regulation and incorporation of SEIR No. 339
Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts for the
development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities: SEIR No. 339 identified that the PTMLUP could potentially affect the library system in the local area. Increased
population would increase demand for these facilities and the services they provide. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, the nearest library
facility to the Project Area is the Sunkist Branch Library located at 901 South Sunkist Avenue. A joint use library facility with the
Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) is located at 2135 South Mountain View Avenue. The Project Area is also served by
virtual Anaheim Library services through the network at the Central Library located at 500 West Broadway. Population growth affects
online resources because the basis for licensing fees for these databases, eBooks, and other digital resources are generally the population
of the library’s service area. With additional residents to serve, the Proposed Project would reduce the overall availability per capita of
books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing
agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system. Mitigation Measure
7‐10 requires the payment of developer fees to assist with providing additional materials and services at the libraries servicing the
population within the Platinum Triangle, which would include Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with library
facilities to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measure 7‐10.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning public services would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XVI. RECREATION – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 40
No New
Impact
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
£ £ £ R £
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for parks
and other recreational facilities. This would increase wear and tear on park facilities and require greater maintenance efforts. However,
as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan would result in the future development of a maximum of
1,746 dwelling units, which is approximately 35 percent fewer units than the original A‐Town Metro land use plan. In addition, the A‐
Town Metro land use plan has been redesigned to relocate and reconfigure the parks/recreational facilities that were approved for the
same area. The approved land use plan for the A‐Town Metro area includes two parks encompassing 3.0 acres and 0.5 acre. With the
reduction in residential density with the A‐Town Metro land use plan, these parks would be replaced and reconfigured with a 1.2‐acre
public park and a 0.6‐acre public linear park extending from Meridian Street as an extension of Market Street south to Gene Autry Way.
The 1.8 acres of public parks included in the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan complies with the mini‐park requirement to provide
44 square feet of parkland for each dwelling unit. SEIR No. 339 concluded that compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC,
establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational space in an
amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. Therefore, with compliance with this regulation along with
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require the acquisition and construction of park
areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be less than significant.
SEIR No.339 determined that the increase in residential development associated with the PTMLUP would increase demand for parks
and other recreational facilities. However, as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the revised A‐Town Metro land use plan would result in the
development of 1,746 residential dwelling units, which is 935 fewer units than the original A‐Town Metro Master Land Use Plan. The
reduction in the number of dwelling units, would create a reduced demand for recreation amenities in the City. Furthermore, such
facilities included in the revised A‐Town Metro Plan are consistent with those previously approved for the area and would not, therefore,
result in the expansion of recreational facilities that could adversely affect the environment. The SEIR No. 339 concluded that
compliance with Section 18.20.110.010 of the AMC, establishing recreational space requirements for the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use
Overlay Zone, would ensure recreational space in an amount that supports the population growth in the Platinum Triangle. With
compliance with this regulation along with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 8‐1, 8‐2, and 8‐3, which would require
the acquisition and construction of park areas in adequate amounts for each development, SEIR No. 339 determined the impacts to be
less than significant.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning recreational facilities would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in
SEIR No. 339. No mitigation measures from SEIR No. 339 are applicable.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 41
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
£ £ £ R £
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? £ £ £ R £
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
£ £ £ R £
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? £ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• Transportation Analysis for A-Town Parcel B, LSA, July 16, 2021 (Appendix E.1)
• Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for A-Town Parcel B, LSA, July 13, 2021 (Appendix E.2)
• Transportation Analysis for A-Town Parcel E, LSA, July 16, 2021 (Appendix E.3)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 analyzed transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the PTMLUP. The California Natural
Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of
vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. The adopted guidelines, evaluates
transportation impacts based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their
current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. In late 2019, State courts stated that under
section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for
roadway capacity projects. SEIR No. 339 determined that the Approved Project would conflict with the LOS for the roadway system
within the Platinum Triangle. SEIR No. 339 required Mitigation Measures 9‐1, 9‐2, 9‐3, 9‐4, 9‐5, 9‐6, 9‐7, 9‐8, 9‐9, 9‐10, 9‐11, 9‐12, 9‐
13, 9‐14, and 9‐15, which would enhance existing facilities and require the development of alternative forms of transit to minimize the
LOS impacts on roadway systems in the Platinum Triangle. Even with the incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts to the
roadway system remained significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council
when SEIR No. 339 was certified.
On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the VMT Thresholds of Significance for purpose of analyzing transportation
impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for CEQA Analysis. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, certain
projects that meet specific screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to CEQA Section 15064.3
absent substantial evidence to the contrary.1 There are three project-screening types that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen
projects from project-level assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types below to qualify for screening. These
screening types are summarized below:
Type 1: Transit Priority Area Screening. A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or
an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) may have a less than significant
VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project has a total floor area
ratio of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction,
Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of
moderate- or high-income residential units.
Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening. A low VMT-generating area is an area that has a VMT per service population metric that is 15%
below the County average. Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may have a less than significant
impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employment-related and mixed-use projects within a low VMT-generating area
1 City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis,
June 2020.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 42
may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the project can reasonably be expected to generate a VMT per service
population metric similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.
Type 3: Project Type Screening. Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Projects that are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to
their local serving nature include local-serving K-12 schools, neighborhood and community parks, day care centers, certain local-serving
retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses, community and religious assembly
uses, public services, local-serving community colleges, affordable or supportive housing, convalescent and rest homes, senior housing,
and projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips.
Area B: Although not stated in the City’s Guidelines, the State’s Technical Advisory states that “lead agencies can evaluate each
component of a mixed‐use project independently.” This assessment of the Area B Project’s potential impacts to VMT evaluates the retail
and residential components independently.
Retail: The Area B Project is constructing 21,640 square feet of retail (with an additional 505 square feet outdoor dining area). The single
largest component is a market, but additional space could be provided for retail, restaurant, or personal service businesses. All would be
local serving. Because the retail component of the Area B Project is less than 50,000 square feet and local serving, the retail component
of the Project qualifies for Type 3 screening as defined in the City’s Guidelines.
Residential: Area B is located in a TPA and qualifies for Type 1 screening. ARTIC is the train station for the Amtrak national train
service and Metrolink commuter rail and also serves as a bus transfer station and a link to the Santa Ana River Trail off‐street bike path.
While ARTIC is located more than 0.5 mile from the Project Site, other transit options connect the Project Site to this major transit stop.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates fixed route bus service in Orange County, including Anaheim. Within
the vicinity of the Project Site, two OCTA routes qualify as high‐quality transit corridors. Route 50 operates primarily along Katella
Avenue and has a stop at ARTIC, while Route 57 operates primarily along State College Boulevard. Both routes appear in the City
Guidelines’ illustration of TPAs in Anaheim. It should be noted that a pedestrian entrance to the residential component of the Project
would be immediately adjacent to a Route 50 bus stop. Therefore, the residential component of the Project would be screened from
further analysis unless conditions are present that would make a presumption of less than significant impact inappropriate.
Because the retail portion of the Area B Project qualifies for Type 3 screening and the residential portion qualifies for Type 1 screening
(and meets the criteria for a less than significant VMT impact under the City’s Guidelines), the Area B Project would result in a less than
significant impact, and a project‐level VMT quantified analysis is not required under the City’s Guidelines.
Area E: Area E is located in a TPA. ARTIC is the train station for the Amtrak national train service and Metrolink commuter rail and
also serves as a bus transfer station and a link to the Santa Ana River Trail off‐street bike path. While ARTIC is located more than 0.5
mile from the project site, other transit options connect the project site to this major transit stop. The OCTA operates fixed route bus
service in Orange County, including Anaheim. Within the vicinity of the project site, two OCTA routes qualify as high‐quality transit
corridors. Route 50 operates primarily along Katella Avenue and has a stop at ARTIC, while Route 57 operates primarily along State
College Boulevard. Both routes appear in the City Guidelines’ illustration of TPAs in Anaheim. It should be noted that a pedestrian
entrance to the Project would be immediately adjacent to a Route 57 bus stop.
Because Area E is within a transit priority area and meets the Type 1 screening criteria for a less than significant VMT impact under the
City’s Guidelines, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, and a project‐level VMT quantified analysis is not required
under the City’s Guidelines.
While the revised CEQA Guidelines prohibit a Lead Agency from using vehicle delay and LOS to evaluate a Project’s transportation
impact, the following analysis provides the development of Area B and E’s consistency with these policies, as well as the City of Anaheim
Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for informational purposes.
The Project for Area B is a mixed-use building consisting of 270 dwelling units (for-rent) and 21,669 square feet of ground floor indoor
retail space with accompanying 505 square feet of outdoor dining space. The Trip Generation Memo conducted by LSA determined that
the Project would generate approximately 267 net new daily trips, with approximately 111 net new trips during the AM peak hour and
approximately 156 net new trips during the PM peak hour. Addendum No. 4 analyzed the impacts to 15 intersections and five roadway
segments in the vicinity of A-Town Metro Master Site Plan, and the proposed development was found to have a less than significant
impact on all the facilities except for the intersection of Lewis Street/Katella Avenue. Therefore, the traffic analysis concluded that one
of the planned roadway improvements included in the Platinum Triangle Improvement Plan (the addition of a fourth westbound through
lane) would need to be implemented prior to occupancy of Development Area B. Development of Area B, however, would have a less
than significant impact on intersection operation of Lewis Street/Katella Avenue. The Area B Project would still be responsible for
citywide Transportation Impact and Improvement fees and Supplemental Platinum Triangle Traffic Impact Fees, which would fund
construction of planned improvements in the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan (including the planned and previously identified
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 43
fourth westbound through lane at Lewis Street/Katella Avenue). However, construction of the fourth westbound through lane is unlikely
to be possible by 2023. Therefore, an alternative improvement has been proposed, also consistent with the Platinum Triangle
Implementation Plan, which would return the intersection to a satisfactory LOS. This improvement would convert the southbound through
lane to a thorough/right-turn lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the high volume of southbound right-turn
vehicles observed in the latest traffic volume data. No modifications to traffic signal phasing would be necessary to implement this
improvement. Upon completion of the Katella Avenue widening project, the previously identified addition of a fourth westbound through
lane could be completed. The Project for Area E would be comprised of 257 dwelling units. As explained in Addendum No. 4, the
buildout of A‐Town Metro, based on the proposed modified land use plan, would result in an overall decrease in the number of vehicles
and vehicle miles traveled. Furthermore, the Projects would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified
EIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would not create sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or any other hazardous
design features. Future projects within the Platinum Triangle, including developments on Areas B and E, would be required to dedicate
land, including construction easements, for the ultimate arterial highway rights‐of‐way to maintain LOS and access to the Platinum
Triangle area (Mitigation Measure 9‐14). Therefore, SEIR No. 339 found the impacts related to the design of hazardous project features
to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 9‐14 and 9‐15.
SEIR No. 339 determined that the property owner/ developer and/or the City would design and improve vehicle access within the
Platinum Triangle in accordance with the requirements of the City to reduce any emergency access impacts from buildout of the Platinum
Triangle, which includes Areas B and E. Development projects, including the Projects for Areas B and E, would be reviewed and
approved by the AFD prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that sufficient accessibility for emergency vehicles is provided
during all phases of construction. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with emergency access to be less than significant with
implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, and no mitigation was required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
concerning transportation would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1 (k)?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 44
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant, pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
According to the initial study prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project that was analyzed in SEIR No. 339, no
cultural resources are known to exist on the proposed Platinum Triangle area, which includes Areas B and E. During the preparation of
SEIR No. 339, a letter requesting consultation with Native American representatives was sent out by the City of Anaheim on March 27,
2014. No responses from any of the Native American representatives contacted were received. No potentially significant impacts are
anticipated to occur, due to the nature and extent of surface and subsurface alteration that has occurred as a result of development that
has occurred on the Sites and in the Project Area. Furthermore, the A‐Town Metro property, which includes Area B and E, is not known
to be utilized by any Native Americans for religious or other culturally important rites and no important cultural resource sites have been
identified within the Project Area. Additionally, no formal cemeteries are located on the A‐Town Metro property or in the Project
environs and no human remains are known to exist in the Project Area. Although Project implementation would require grading and
excavation to implement the proposed improvements (i.e., mixed use development), the discovery of human remains is not anticipated.
Nonetheless, the Projects must comply with applicable laws when human remains are encountered during grading and construction to
ensure that no significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, including human remains. In the event that human remains are discovered,
construction activities must be halted or diverted until the provisions of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and §5097.98 of the
Public Resources Code have been implemented. As a result, Project implementation would not result in any new significant impacts
and no additional mitigation measures are required.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on tribal cultural resources would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
£ £ £ R £
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
£ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 45
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
£ £ £ R £
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State and local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
£ £ £ R £
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
£ £ £ R £
This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis:
• LMC-KTGY, A Town Block B Anaheim, CA, Trash Management Plan, American Trash Management, Inc., September 28,
2021 (Appendix F.1)
• LMC-KTGY, A Town Block E Anaheim, CA, Trash Management Plan, American Trash Management, Inc., September 28,
2021 (Appendix F.2)
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
Water: SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require the addition of new water facilities. Rule 15‐D of the
City of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates, and Regulations specifies the water facility improvements required to accommodate the projected
land use water demands within Anaheim, including within the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E. SEIR No. 339
determined that Water Rule 15‐D of the City’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations (Plan No. W2524C) would ensure that adequate
water facilities are provided to serve the Platinum Triangle area. Furthermore, as discussed in Addendum No. 4, the demand for the
Revised A‐Town Master Land Use Plan would be approximately 39 percent lower than the approved plan due to the proposed reduction
in development intensity. Finally, based on the water system hydraulic analysis prepared for the A‐Town project, domestic water would
be provided by the City of Anaheim through an existing 16‐inch waterline located in Katella Avenue and an existing 12‐inch main
located in Gene Autry Way.2 The proposed water system consists of 12‐inch water mains, which are connected to the City’s existing
mains. The proposed water system provides pressures greater than 45 pounds per square inch (psi) for all nodes during peak hour
demands and pressures greater than 20 psi during maximum day demands as well as 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow evens as
required by the City. The minimum residual pressure experience for the “worst case” 4,000 gpm fire flow event was 27 psi for both
Sites. As indicated in the Water System Hydraulic Analysis, all domestic water meters would require individual pressure reduction
devices to reduce the pressure to a maximum of 80 psi for each dwelling unit and commercial building with the Project Sites. As a result,
water supply and facilities are adequate to serve the future development with the Project Area. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated
with new or expanded water treatment facilities to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐
1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, 10‐6, 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16.
SEIR No. 339 determined that based on the Water Supply Assessment for the PTMLUP, surplus water would be available through the
20‐year planning period. SEIR No. 339 impacts associated with water supplies were determined to be less than significant with
incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐7, 10‐8, 10‐9, 10‐10, 10‐11, 10‐12, 10‐13, 10‐14, 10‐15, and 10‐16. Furthermore,
the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five (5)-year increments and
identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three
hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single-year, and multiple dry years. In its most recent UWMP, the City determined that it would
have reliable supplies to meet single-and multiple dry-year demands from 2020 through 2045. Demand would be met through diversified
supply and water conservation measures. The UWMP also includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that describes policies that
MWD and the City have in place to respond to catastrophic interruption and reduction in water supply. Moreover, in May 2015, the City
adopted Ordinance No. 6332 amending Chapter 10.18 of the Municipal Code in response to the State Water Resources Control Board's
emergency regulations. The Ordinance specifies voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures that can be implemented
depending on the level of water shortage. The Projects would not exceed water supplies or result in a significant increase in water
2 Water System Hydraulic Analysis; Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; December 2014.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 46
demand. As discussed in Addendum No. 4, implementation of the Projects would result in an overall decrease of water consumed by the
residential and commercial development when compared to the Approved A‐Town Master Land Use Plan land uses due to a proposed
reduction in development intensity. In addition, as previously noted the Project Sites are within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone of the
PTMLUP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration. Therefore, the Projects would not result
in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 339.
Wastewater: SEIR No. 339 determined that buildout of the PTMLUP would require sewer improvements. Wastewater from the City
sewer system is conveyed to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The Project Area is
served by the Newhope‐Placentia Trunk (State College Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa
Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. With implementation of sewer system improvements, the sewer system, including sewer treatment
facilities, was anticipated to be adequate for development associated with the PTMLUP, which includes serving Areas B and E. Further,
it was determined that the potential for sewer spills during a 10‐year storm event would be low and would not create a significant impact.
SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements to be less than significant with incorporation of SEIR
No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3, 10‐4, 10‐5, and 10‐6.
Stormwater: SEIR No. 339 noted that the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary
Area identified that the existing storm drainage system was deficient under the existing conditions in the Platinum Triangle at the time
the SEIR was prepared. SEIR No. 339 concluded that construction of storm drain facilities would occur in compliance with engineering
standards and regulations and would not result in a significant environmental effect. Grading Plans prepared for proposed development
must include an approved drainage and erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading.
Additionally, development sites that encompass an area of 1.0 acre or greater would be subject to compliance with the NPDES program’s
General Construction Permit requirements and consequently the development and implementation of an SWPPP as prescribed by the
City of Anaheim. In addition, compliance with the City’s grading and excavation ordinance will also ensure that potential erosion and
loss of topsoil is minimized. Further, on-site grading and drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work
on Areas B and E would be required to meet the City’s and OCFCD flood control criteria including design discharges,
design/construction standards and maintenance features. The Projects would result in less imperviousness that would generate a
decreased peak runoff volume and flowrate. The Project Sites would be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed
curb‐inlet catch basins, located at relative low points on‐site. The catch basins would convey flows to proposed MWS for water quality
treatment through a proposed underground storm drain system. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Projects,
the Project applicant would have to comply with all applicable regulations and obtain a NPDES stormwater permit to indicate that the
Project features BMPs. As such, the Projects would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater
NPDES standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities were
determined to be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure10‐17 identified in SEIR No. 339.
Electrical Power: SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the PTMLUP would increase the electrical load on existing facilities
and would require both upgrades to the existing 12‐kilovolt distribution systems and construction of a new electrical substation. In
addition, the Projects for Areas B and E would be required to comply with the State energy efficiency standards (CCR Title 24), as
specified in Mitigation Measures 10‐21, 10‐22, 10‐23, and 10‐24. SEIR No. 339 concluded that with implementation of the mitigation
measures, impacts on electrical service would be less than significant. With the necessary system upgrades and facility improvements,
SCG would be able to service the Platinum Triangle, which includes Areas B and E, with natural gas. Therefore, SEIR No. 339 concluded
that impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
Natural Gas: SEIR No. 339 states that implementation of the PTMLUP would increase the natural gas demand in the Project Area and
would require an additional 1.5 miles of gas transmission pipelines; placement of at least two additional pressure limiting stations; and
alteration of at least three miles of existing gas mains in the area to increase capacity. With necessary system upgrades and facility
improvements, Southern California Gas Company (SCG) would be able to service the PTMLUP, including Areas B and E, with natural
gas, which would be provided in accordance with SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission when
the contractual arrangements are made. Although the PTMLUP was found to create additional demands on natural gas supplies and
distribution infrastructure, the increased demands would be within the service capabilities of SCG, provided necessary improvements
are made in coordination with SCG. SEIR No. 339 found that implementation of the PTMLUP would not result in any unavoidable
adverse impacts to natural gas service or resources.
Telecommunications: AT&T and Time‐Warner provide telephone and cable television service to the PTMLUP, respectively. According
to SEIR No. 339, no impacts related to telephone service systems or cable television service was identified. Consequently, SEIR No.
339 does not contain any specific analysis related to telephone service systems or cable television service. The Projects, are located
within an urbanized area within the City of Anaheim, and would be adequately served by telecommunications facilities. The Projects
would include on-site connections to off-site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area of the Project Sites.
Additionally, facilities and infrastructure for the various telecommunication providers are adequate to serve the needs of the Projects.
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 47
The Projects would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. The Projects would result
in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
Solid Waste: SEIR No. 339 determined that the Olinda Alpha Landfill is the closest facility to the Platinum Triangle area and would be
the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the Platinum Triangle, including Areas B and E. The PTMLUP would increase
the service demand for solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions for the Olinda Alpha Landfill. As discussed in Addendum No.
4, implementation of the Projects would result in an overall decrease of solid waste generated by the residential and commercial
development when compared to the approved A‐Town Master Land Use Plan land uses due to a proposed reduction in development
intensity. The SEIR concluded that there would be available landfill capacity in the Orange County landfill system to accommodate the
anticipated solid waste stream generated by implementation of the PTMLUP. SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with landfill
capacity to be less than significant with the incorporation of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
SEIR No. 339 concluded that implementation of the PTMLUP would generate increased construction and operational solid waste in the
area. Each development project in the Platinum Triangle, including the projects proposed for Areas B and E, would be required to submit
project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans
comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management
Program, as administered by the City of Anaheim. Areas B and E Trash Management Plans show compliance with AB 939 (1989)
requiring 50 percent diversion levels, AB 341 (2008) requiring all business generating four cubic yards of waste per week to actively
implement and participate in recycling programs, and AB 1826 (2014) mandating businesses divert organics (refer to Appendix F) for
details). SEIR No. 339 found impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations to be less than significant with incorporation
of SEIR No. 339 Mitigation Measures 10‐18, 10‐19, and 10‐20.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
associated with solid waste would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR
No. 339.
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? £ £ £ R £
b. Due to the slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
£ £ £ R £
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risks or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
£ £ £ R £
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or £ £ £ R £
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 48
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
stability, or drainage changes?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No 339 did not analyze Wildfire as it was previously approved before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard.
According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of Anaheim, the Project Sites are not within a State Responsibility
Area. The Project Sites are in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility area. The
Project Sites are flat and does not have a slope or other features that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The Projects would tie into existing
infrastructure that currently serves the Project Sites. Project implementation would not result in the new construction, installation, or
maintenance of new infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The Projects’ construction would not require the complete closure of
any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for
emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. The Projects would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no
impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
The Projects are in a developed, urbanized area, and surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes or
hills near the Project Sites that would have the potentially expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in Add.
No. 4
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially 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?
£ £ £ R £
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)?
£ £ £ R £
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
£ £ £ R £
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 339/No new impacts.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would not degrade the quality of the environment related to biological and cultural resources
because the Platinum Triangle is already developed and approved for redevelopment. In addition, the resulting increase in development
intensities would not further degrade the quality of the environment. No impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment
would occur and no mitigation was required. As discussed, and analyzed in this document, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
A-Town Development -Area B and E Project Initial Study
Page 49
degrade the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Further, as discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Project Area does not contain any important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, the Projects for Areas B and E would not
result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would result in cumulatively considerable air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic impacts. As a result
of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council. As discussed, and analyzed in this
document, the Projects for Areas B and E would not increase the severity or result in new impacts identified in SEIR No. 339. Therefore,
the Projects for Areas B and E would not increase the severity of a previous cumulative impact or result in any new cumulative impacts
not already analyzed in SEIR No. 339.
SEIR No. 339 found that the PTMLUP would result in significant unavoidable air quality, land use, noise, traffic, and GHG impacts. As
a result of these findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
No changes in circumstances involving the Projects have occurred; therefore, the Projects would not result in new impacts or impacts of
greater severity than those previously identified in SEIR No. 339. No new information of substantial importance is available now which
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the certification of SEIR No. 339.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible. Therefore, no new impacts
on human beings would occur because of the Projects, and the level of impact would not increase from that identified in SEIR No. 339.
, ecording RequebltiJ J~
~ortn ~merican 1it\e com~atW .
J'2~S7ao
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Council
City of Anaheim
c/o City Clerk
P.O. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92805
Recorded in Official Records, Orange County
Hugh Nguyen, Clerk-Recorder
I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII I I Ill llll 438.00 * $ R O O O 7 9 6 2 4 4 3 $ *
201500058693611:58 am 11/13/15
217 402 A12 F13 144
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 429.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY.)
AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHETh1
AND
PT METRO, LLC
ATTACHMENT 8
AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00008
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND
PT METRO, LLC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
RECITALS ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Assessment District .................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Authorizing Ordinance ............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Builder Tentative Map ............................................................................................. 9
1.4 City ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.5 City Agency or City Agencies .................................................................................. 9
1.6 Community Improvements .................................................................................... 10
1. 7 Development .......................................................................................................... 10
1.8 Development Agreement ....................................................................................... 10
1.9 Development Agreement Date ............................................................................... 10
1.10 Development Agreement Statute ........................................................................... 10
1.11 Development Approvals ........................................................................................ 10
1.12 Development Area ................................................................................................. 10
1.13 Enabling Ordinance ................................................................................................ 10
1.14 Existing Land Use Regulations .............................................................................. 11
1.15 Final SitePlan ........................................................................................................ 11
1.16 First Certificate of Occupancy ............................................................................... 11
1.17 Gross Floor Area/GF A ........................................................................................... 11
1.18 Interim Development Fees ..................................................................................... 11
1.19 ImpactFees ............................................................................................................ 11
1.20 Master Final Tract Map .......................................................................................... 11
1.21 Master Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 12
1.22 Master Tentative Map ............................................................................................ 12
1.23 Mortgage ................................................................................................................ 12
1.24 Mortgagee .............................................................................................................. 12
1.25 Owner ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.26 ParkingAreas ......................................................................................................... 12
1.27 Permitted Development ......................................................................................... 12
1.28 Platinum Triangle ................................................................................................... 12
1.29 Procedures Resolution ........................................................................................... 12
1.30 Project .................................................................................................................... 12
1.31 Property .................................................................................................................. 12
1.32 Public Improvements ............................................................................................. 13
1.33
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
Section 7.
Section 8.
Section 9.
9.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
Section 10.
Section 11.
Section 12.
Storm-water Management Improvements .............................................................. 13
Support Commercial Uses ..................................................................................... 13
Term ....................................................................................................................... 13
Tract No. 16859 ..................................................................................................... 13
Zoning Code ........................................................................................................... 13
TERM .................................................................................................................... 13
BIN"DING COVENANTS ...................................................................................... 14
EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................. 14
PROJECT LAND USES ........................................................................................ 15
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 15
Description of Permitted Buildings ....................................................................... 15
Final Site Plans ...................................................................................................... 15
Parking Areas ......................................................................................................... 15
DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDIN"GS .......................................................... .16
ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................. 16
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES .................................................... 16
Pub lie Park ............................................................................................................. 17
Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, & Drainage) ........................................... 18
Water Service ......................................................................................................... 18
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains .......................................................................... 18
Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities ................ 19
Traffic Circulation Improvements ......................................................................... 20
Permits to Enter City Property ............................................................................... 20
Library/Community Center .................................................................................... 20
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ....................................................... 23
REIMBURSEMENT PROVISION ....................................................................... 24
DEDICATIONS AND EXACTIONS ................................................................... .24
Section 13. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 25
13.1 Fees, Taxes and Assessments ................................................................................ 25
13.2 Platinum Triangle Interim Development Fees ....................................................... 25
13.2.1 Electrical Utilities Undergrounding Fee ............................................................... .26
13.2.2 General Plan and Environmental Processing Fee .................................................. 26
ii
Section 25.
25.1
25.2
25.3
Section 26.
26.1
26.2
26.3
26.4
Section 27.
27.1
27.2
27.3
27.4
27.5
27.6
27.7
Section 28.
28.1
28.2
28.3
28.4
28.5
28.6
Section 29.
29.1
29.2
Section 30.
Section 31.
31.1
31.2
31.3
31.4
31.5
31.6
31.7
31.8
31.9
CANCELLATION ................................................................................................ .32
Initiation of Cancellation ....................................................................................... 32
Procedure ............................................................................................................... 32
Consent of OWNER and CITY ............................................................................. 32
PERIODIC REVIEW ............................................................................................. 32
Time for Review .................................................................................................... 32
OWNER's Submission .......................................................................................... .32
Findings; Non-Compliance; Right to Cure ............................................................ 32
Initiation of Review by City Council ..................................................................... 33
DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION ............................................... 33
Defaults ................................................................................................................. .3 3
Notice ofDefault .................................................................................................... 33
Remedies ................................................................................................................ 34
No Waiver .............................................................................................................. 35
Joint and Several Liability ..................................................................................... 35
Specific Performance ............................................................................................. 36
Legal Actions; Jurisdiction and Venue .................................................................. 36
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION ............................................................... 36
Notice to OWNER ................................................................................................. 36
Public Hearing ....................................................................................................... 36
Decision ................................................................................................................. 36
Standard of Review ................................................................................................ 3 7
Implementation ...................................................................................................... 3 7
Schedule for Compliance ....................................................................................... 37
ASSIGNMENT ...................................................................................................... 3 7
Right to Assign ...................................................................................................... 37
Release upon Transfer ............................................................................................ 38
NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS ................................................................... 38
GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 39
Force Maieure ....................................................................................................... .39
Construction of Development Agreement ............................................................. 39
Severability ............................................................................................................ 39
Hold Harmless Agreement; Indemnity .................................................................. 40
Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge ....................................................... .40
Public Agency Coordination .................................................................................. 41
Initiative Measures ................................................................................................. 41
Attorneys' Fees ...................................................................................................... 42
No Waiver .............................................................................................................. 42
iv
AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 200 5-00008
BE'L'WEEN
TifE CITY or ANARETM
AND
PT METRO, LLC.
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT A()REEMENT (''Development
Agreement" or "Agreement") is entered into this -1.'l.it day of Quk.J,<..,....-, 2015, by and
between the CITY OF ANAHEIM, a c ha1ter city and municipal corporation, duly organ ized and
existing under the Constitutio n and laws of the Slate of California (hereinafter "CJTY"), and PT
METRO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (refetTcd to herein as "OWNER''), pursuant
to th e a uthority set forth in Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division I of Title 7, Sections 65864
through 65869 .5 o r the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute").
RECITALS
This Development Agreement is predicated upon the following facts:
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
compre hensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the
State of Califo rnia adopted the Development Agreement Statute. T he Development Agreement
Statute authorizes CTTY to enter into binding deve lopment agreements with persons having legal
or equi table interests in real property for the deve lopment of such property in order to, among
other things: encourage and provide for the deve lo pment o f public fa c ilit ies in order to support
develo pme11t projects; provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid
the was le of re sources and the escalation in project costs and encourage investment in and
commi tment to comprehen sive planning which will make maximum e fficient utilization of
resources at the least economic cost t o the public; provide assurance to the applicants of
development proj ects (I) that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existi ng
policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approval of such projects and
provisions of such development agreements, and (2) encourage private participation m
comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development.
B. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized term s which are defined .in this
Development Agreement. The par ties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the
use thereof in these Recitals.
C. CTTY, as a charter city, has enacted Ordinance No. 4377 on November 23, .I 982,
which makes CITY subject to the Development Agreement Sta tute. Pursuant to Section 65865
oftbe Development Agreement Statute, CITY adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (the ''Procedures
Resolution") on November 23, 1982. The Procedures Resolution establishes p rocedures and
requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application.
D. On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved General Plan Amendment No.
2004-00419, setting forth the CITY's vision for development of the City of Anaheim (the
"General Plan Amendment"), and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330,
adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated
Mitigation Monitoring Plans (collectively, "FEIR No. 330"), in conjunction with its
consideration and approval of the General Plan Amendment, an amendment of CITY' s Zoning
Code, and a series of related actions.
E. CITY desires that the approximately 820-acre area generally bounded by the Santa
Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5)
on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company Easement on the north (hereinafter
called "Platinum Triangle") be developed as a combination of high quality industrial, office,
commercial and residential uses, as envisioned in the General Plan Amendment.
F. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum
Triangle, on August 17, 2004, the City Council approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan, setting forth the new vision for the Platinum Triangle.
G. To further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for the Platinum
Triangle, the City Council has established the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay
Zone (hereinafter the "PTMU Overlay Zone") consisting of approximately three hundred and
eighty-three acres within the Platinum Triangle as depicted in the Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan to provide opportunities for high quality well-designed development projects that could
be stand-alone projects or combine residential with non-residential uses including office, retail,
business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities
within the area.
H. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332, adopting a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No.
106A (collectively, "FSEIR No. 332") to provide for the implementation of the Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and in conjunction with its consideration and approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00420, Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00089, Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2004-00036 and a series ofrelated actions.
I. On October 25, 2005, the Anaheim City Council found and determined that FSEIR No.
332, a revision to the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A to add
new mitigation measure MM 5.10-7 thereto, and an Addendum to FSEIR No. 332, together with
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 138, were, collectively, adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for the "Original Development Approvals" (as defined below) and
that no further environmental documentation needed to be prepared for said Original
Development Approvals.
2
J. On or about November 8, 2005, the CITY and Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC
("Developer") and Don H. Watson, Trustee of the Don H. Watson Family Trust; Julius Realty
Corporation; Traffic Control Services, Inc.; Joselito D. Ong and Renee Dee Ong; Roger C.
Treichler and Vicki Treichler as Co-Trustees of the Treichler Family Trust; Robert Stovall
Family Partnership, L.P., and Jennifer Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as Tenants in Common
(collectively, the "Sellers") entered into that certain Development Agreement No. 2005-0008 as
the Owner, which Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Orange
County, California ("Official Records") on December 13, 2005 as Instrument No.
2005000992876 (the "Original Development Agreement") with respect to that certain real
property as legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference (herein referred to as the "Property"). Copies of the Original Development Agreement
are available as a public record in the office of the City Clerk located at 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, California. The Original Development Agreement provided for the
development of a Master Site Plan for the Property consisting of up to 2,681 residences with a
mix of housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium
townhomes and lofts, with 150,000 square feet of street-related retail commercial development,
public park space and associated infrastructure to be developed in four phases ( collectively, the
"Original Project"). The Original Development Agreement provided for an initial Term of five
(5) years, subject to extension thereof for up to three (3) additional five-year periods provided
that certain development milestones were achieved, which were defined in Exhibit G thereto as
"Term Extension Milestones".
K. Subsequent to the recordation of the Original Development Agreement, the fee title
interest in and to the Property was transferred from, and the Original Development Agreement
was assigned by, the Sellers to the Developer, making Developer the sole owner of the Property
and the "Developer" and "Owner" under the terms of the Original Development Agreement.
L. Prior to entering into the Original Development Agreement, certain development
approvals and permits were approved by the CITY for the Property to provide for the orderly
development of the Original Project. The Development Approvals for the Original Project
consisted of (1) General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00434, to amend Figure LU-4 of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan to re-designate an approximately 10.4-acre site from the Office-
High land use designation to the Mixed-Use land use designation; (2) Miscellaneous Case No.
2005-00111 to amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to incorporate an
approximately 10.4-acre site into the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone,
Katella District; (3) Miscellaneous Case No. 2005-00116 to rescind, in part, City Council
Resolution No. 2004-00008 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-00127; (4) Reclassification
No. 2005-00164, to reclassify an approximately 10.4-acre site from the I (Industrial) Zone to the I
(PTMU Overlay) (Industrial-Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay) Zone; (5) Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2005-00042, to incorporate an approximately 10.4-acre site into the Platinum
Triangle; (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04999, permitting residential tower structures up
to 400 feet in height on a portion of the Property; (6) the Original Development Agreement; and
(7) Tentative Tract Map No. 16859 for condominium purposes (collectively, the "Original
3
all obligations of "OWNER" (as defined in the Development Agreement) pursuant to the
Development Agreement and the Original Development Approvals.
P. On October 26, 2010, the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment
No. 2008-00471 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
(Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188) and certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 2008-00339 ("FSEIR No. 339"), to increase the allowable intensities within the
PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,909 dwelling units, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial uses,
14,340,522 square feet of office uses, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional land uses.
Q. On December 18, 2012, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No.
2012-00486 and approved an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
("Miscellaneous Case No. 2012-00559") and the PTMU Overlay Zone ("Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2012-00107") to increase the number of dwelling units and reduce the amount
of office and commercial development allowed within the "Mixed-Use" land use designation of
the Platinum Triangle and to amend various Elements of the General Plan to include the addition
of a public park; and
R. On October 21, 2014, the Anaheim City Council adopted General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-00495 to permit an increase in the allowable number of residential dwelling units from
350 to 389 for a master planned mixed use project on a 4.13 acre (approximate) parcel commonly
known as 1005-11105 East Katella Avenue. Thereafter, to be consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-00495, the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6309 on
November 18, 2014, which had the effect of increasing the maximum square footage for
commercial uses within the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay Zone to 634,643 square feet,
resulting in an aggregate increase in the square footage for commercial uses within the PTMU
Overlay Zone to 4,795,111. Ordinance No. 6309 also had the effect of increasing the maximum
number of housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone to 18,999. However, to correct clerical
errors subsequently discovered in the tabulation of those density numbers in Ordinance No. 6309,
the Anaheim City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 6319 on April 7, 2015. Ordinance No.
6319 had the effect of establishing (1) the maximum square footage for commercial uses within
the Katella District as 658,043 square feet, (2) the maximum square footage for commercial uses
within the PTMU Overlay Zone, as a whole, as 4,735,111, and (3) the maximum number of
housing units within the PTMU Overlay Zone as 19,027; and
S. OWNER represents that it owns the Property in fee, which consists of approximately
43 .1 acres of real property located west of State College Boulevard, between Katella Avenue and
Gene Autry Way, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California within portions
of the Katella and Gene Autry Way Districts of the Platinum Triangle and zoned PTMU Overlay.
T. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this
Development Agreement by developing a minimum of 1,400 and a maximum of 1,746
residential dwelling units, a Public Park and Public Linear Park, consisting of approximately 1.8
5
acres, and a minimum of 38,000 GF A of commercial/retail development, all as more particularly
set forth in the Master Site Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project").
U. CITY desires to acquire an option to lease or acquire up to 20,000 square feet of
commercial GFA, which space shall be in excess of the minimum of 38,000 GFA of
commercial/retail development that OWNER will develop on the Property.
V. Pursuant to Section 19 of the Existing Development Agreement and Chapter 18.60 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code, Owner has requested a series of actions to replace the Original
Development Approvals ( collectively, the "Project Actions"), including:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00490 to reflect the relocation of
the Public Park;
2. Miscellaneous Case No. 2015-00598 to amend the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan to, among other things, reconfigure the Property's circulation system,
street types and street-section design based on the Master Site Plan (Exhibit B hereto), to reflect
modified ground floor commercial/retail use locations (Development Areas B and C) of the
Master Site Plan, and to delete Appendix F (A-Town Public Realm Landscape and Identity
Program);
3. This Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2005-00008C
to amend and restate the Existing Development Agreement in its entirety in order to provide for
the development of the Project and certain vested development rights in connection therewith;
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 17703 for condominium purposes to re-
subdivide approximately 36. 7 acres of the Property ( excludes a portion of Westside Drive and
Development Area A of the Master Site Plan (Exhibit B hereto), formerly Development Areas J
and O of the approved Master Site Plan or Lots 1 and 11 of Tract 16859) into lots which
correspond with the Development Areas and recreation areas (Public Park and Public Linear
Park) established by the Master Site Plan (Exhibit B hereto);
5. Zoning Code Amendment No. 2013-00112 to amend the Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to modify the requirement for ground floor commercial uses
on Market Street and to clarify that ground floor commercial uses are required on Gene Autry
Way east of Union Street;
6. The Master Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by this reference, to reconfigure the Original Project's land use and circulation plan to
provide flexible Development Areas, modification of the size and location of the public park
from that which was depicted in the Master Site Plan for the Original Project, and to revise the
approved circulation system in order to provide an east-west/north-south grid street system to be
compatible with existing market demands and economic conditions while still providing an
6
urban development consistent with the goals, principles and design guidelines of the Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and
7. Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339.
W. CITY desires to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the CITY's General
Plan and the objectives for the PTMU Overlay Zone, as set forth in subsection 18.20.010.020 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code, and finds that the Project will accomplish said goals and
objectives.
X. Pursuant to the Master Site Plan, OWNER will submit Final Site Plans, tentative
maps and/or vesting tentative maps, if required. OWNER further anticipates the submission of
detailed construction plans and other documentation required by CITY in order for the OWNER
to obtain its building permits.
Y. As consideration for the benefits gained from the vested rights acquired pursuant to
the Development Agreement Statute, to conform with the requirements of the PTMU Overlay
Zone, and to comply with the applicable mitigation measures imposed by Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321 for the
Project, together with Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, CITY is requiring that OWNER
construct and install certain public improvements, including off-site traffic circulation
improvements, and provide other public benefits.
Z. In order to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes which may arise from time to
time between OWNER and CITY concerning the proposed development of the Project and to
assure each party of the intention of the other as to the processing of any land use entitlements
which now or hereafter may be required for such development, the parties believe it is desirable
to set forth their intentions and understandings in this Development Agreement. In order for both
CITY and OWNER to achieve their respective objectives, it is imperative that each be as certain
as possible that OWNER will develop and that CITY will permit OWNER to develop the Project
and public improvements as approved by CITY within the time periods provided in this
Development Agreement.
AA. On December 19, 2013, as required by Section 1.0 of the Procedures Resolution,
OWNER submitted to the Planning and Building Department an application for approval of a
development agreement (hereinafter called the "Application"). The Application included a
proposed development agreement (the "Proposed Development Agreement").
BB. On August 27, 2015, as required by Section 65867 of the Development Agreement
Statute and Section 2.1 of the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Director gave public notice of
the City Planning Commission's intention to consider a recommendation to the City Council
regarding adoption of a development agreement.
7
1. 7 Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes
of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, without
limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project
whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings and
the installation of landscaping.
1.8 Development Agreement. "Development Agreement" means this Development
Agreement and any subsequent amendments to this Development Agreement which have been
made in compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement, the Development
Agreement Statute, the Enabling Ordinance, and the Procedures Resolution. This Development
Agreement is intended to replace in its entirety the Existing Development Agreement and to
reflect the agreement of the parties to the amendment and restatement of the Existing
Development Agreement.
1.9 Development Agreement Date. The "Development Agreement Date" means the
effective date of the Authorizing Ordinance.
1.10 Development Agreement Statute. The "Development Agreement Statute" means
Sections 65 864 through 65 869 .5 of the California Government Code, as those sections exist on
the Development Agreement Date.
1.11 Development Approvals. "Development Approvals" means the Master Site Plan
and all site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use of every kind and nature
contemplated by the Master Site Plan which are approved or granted by CITY in connection with
development of the Property, including, but not limited to: Final Site Plans, tentative and final
subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits and grading,
building and other similar permits. To the extent any of such site specific plans, maps, permits
and other entitlements to use are amended from time to time, "Development Approvals" shall
include, if OWNER and CITY agree in writing, such matters as so amended. If this
Development Agreement is required by law to be amended in order for "Development
Approvals" to include any such amendments, "Development Approvals" shall not include such
amendments unless and until this Development Agreement is so amended.
1.12 Development Area. "Development Area" means a lettered residential Development
Area, as shown on the Master Site Plan.
1.13 Enabling Ordinance. The "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 4377
enacted by the CITY on November 23, 1982.
1.14 Existing Land Use Regulations. "Existing Land Use Regulations" mean the
ordinances and regulations adopted by the CITY of Anaheim that were in place on the date that
the Authorizing Ordinance approving this Development Agreement became effective, including
the adopting ordinances and regulations that govern the permitted uses of land, the density and
intensity of use, and the design, improvement, construction standards and specifications
applicable to the development of the Property, as so amended, including, but not limited to, the
General Plan, the Zoning Code, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, previously-
certified FSEIR No. 339, Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C,
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 321, together with Addendum No. 4 to FSEIR No. 339, and all
other ordinances of the CITY establishing subdivision standards, park regulations, impact or
development fees and building and improvement standards, but only to the extent the Zoning
Code and such other regulations are not inconsistent with this Development Agreement.
"Existing Land Use Regulations" do not include non-land use regulations, which includes taxes.
1.15 Final Site Plan. The "Final Site Plan" means the detailed plans for a Development
Area implementing the Master Site Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission.
1.16 First Certificate of Occupancy. "First Certificate of Occupancy" means the first
certificate of occupancy (such as a temporary certificate of occupancy) issued by the CITY
Building Department for a portion of the building that contains residential units or leasable
commercial space. A First Certificate of Occupancy shall not mean a certificate of occupancy
issued for a portion of the residential or commercial building dedicated to a sales office or other
marketing office for residential units or leasable commercial space.
1.17 Gross Floor Area/GP A. "Gross Floor Area" or "GF A" means the gross floor area of
any buildings which are part of the Permitted Development.
1.18 Interim Development Fees. "Interim Development Fees" are the fees imposed
within the Platinum Triangle pending adoption of permanent fee programs by the CITY as set
forth in Paragraph 13.2 of this Development Agreement.
1.19 Impact Fees. "Impact Fees" shall mean the fees, exactions and impositions charged
by CITY in connection with the development of the Project under the Existing Land Use
Regulations as of the Development Agreement Date, including but not limited to Storm Drain
Impact and Improvement Fees, traffic signal fees, Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees,
Public Safety Facilities and Vehicle Equipment Impact Fees. Impact Fees shall not include
processing fees, permit and application fees, taxes or special assessments.
1.20 Master Final Tract Map. "Master Final Tract Map" means the final tract map to
be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange for Tentative Tract
Map No. 17703.
1.21 Master Site Plan. The "Master Site Plan" means the Project as described in this
Development Agreement and conditions with respect thereto, as generally depicted on Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.22 Master Tentative Map. A tentative map processed and recorded to establish the
boundaries of a Development Area.
11
1.23 Mortgage. "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback
arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein,
is pledged as security.
1.24 Mortgagee. "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a
Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest therein, under a Mortgage.
1.25 Owner. "OWNER" is PT Metro, LLC, and any person or entity who receives any of
the rights or obligations of PT Metro, LLC under this Development Agreement in accordance
with the provisions of Section 30 (Assignment) of this Development Agreement.
1.26 Parking Areas. The "Parking Areas" means all parking structure(s) and/or all
surface parking servicing the Project.
1.27 Permitted Development. "Permitted Development" includes all buildings and the
Parking Areas as identified in Section 6 of this Development Agreement and as further set forth
in the Master Site Plan. This Development Agreement establishes maximum and minimum
characteristics for all Permitted Development as set forth in the Master Site Plan.
1.28 Platinum Triangle. "Platinum Triangle" means that portion of the City of Anaheim
generally bounded on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the south by the Anaheim city limits,
on the west by the Santa Ana Freeway, and on the north by the Southern California Edison
Easement.
1.29 Procedures Resolution. The "Procedures Resolution" is Resolution No. 82R-565
adopted by the City Council of the CITY pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development
Agreement Statute.
1.30 Project. The "Project" means the development project contemplated by the Master
Site Plan with respect to the Property, including but not limited to on-site and off-site
improvements, as such development project is further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to
the provisions of this Development Agreement and the Development Approvals.
1.31 Property. The "Property" means that certain real property shown and described on
Exhibit A to this Development Agreement.
1.32 Public Improvements. "Public Improvements" means the facilities, both on-and
offsite, to be improved, constructed and dedicated to (and, upon completion in accordance with
this Agreement, accepted by) the CITY by OWNER. Public Improvements include the Public
Park and the Public Linear Park, streets within the Property, sidewalks, bio-swales and other
Storm-water Management Improvements in the public right-of-way, all public utilities within the
streets (such as gas, electricity, water, storm drains and sewer lines, but excluding any non-
municipal utilities), bicycle lanes and paths in the public right of way, off-site intersection
12
improvements (including but not limited to curbs, medians, signaling, traffic controls devices,
signage, and striping), transit system improvements, and all other improvements delineated on
street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer for the Project during the pendency of
the Project. The Public Improvements do not include paseos, pedestrian paths within the
Property, parks and open spaces, and community or recreation facilities to be built on land owned
and retained by OWNER.
1.33 Storm-water Management Improvements. "Storm-water Management
Improvements" means the facilities, both those to remain privately-owned and those to be
dedicated to the CITY, that comprise the infrastructure and landscape system that is intended to
manage the storm-water runoff associated with the Project. Storm-water Management
Improvements include but are not limited to: (i) swales and bioswales (including plants and
soils), (ii) bio~gutters and grates (including plants and soils), (iii) tree wells, (iv) ponds, wetlands,
and constructed streams, (v) storm-water cisterns, (vi) permeable paving systems, (vii) storm-
water culverts, (viii) trench drains and grates, (ix) storm-water piping, (x) storm-water collection
system, and (xi) other facilities performing a storm-water control function.
1.34 Support Commercial Uses. "Support Commercial Uses" are commercial\retail uses
which may include retail uses, banking or financial offices, food service, restaurants, service
establishments and other similar uses in keeping with the nature of the Project.
1.35 Term. "Term" is defined in Section 2 of this Development Agreement.
1.36 Tract No. 16859. "Tract No. 16859" was established for the Property by recordation
of Final Tract Map No. 16859 in Book 892, Pages 1 through 10, inclusive, of Miscellaneous
Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange.
1.3 7 Zoning Code. "Zoning Code" refers to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Section 2. TERM.
2.1 The Existing Development Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its
entirety by this Development Agreement.
2.2 The term (hereinafter called "Term") of this Development Agreement shall be that
period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties
hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a
period of five (5) years thereafter, unless extended or earlier terminated as provided herein.
Thereafter, the Term of this Development Agreement shall be automatically extended for up to
three (3) additional five (5) year periods provided that the development milestones described in
Exhibit G are timely achieved. Owner shall submit proof of compliance with the project
milestones shown in Exhibit G prior to the expiration of each period set forth therein. The
Planning Director shall determine if the project milestones have been met, and will inform the
City Council of the extension of the Development Agreement.
13
2.3 This Development Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the
occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order, after all appeals have
been exhausted, directed to CITY as a result of any lawsuit filed against CITY to set aside,
withdraw or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Development Agreement or if
termination occurs pursuant to the provisions of the Procedures Resolution and such termination
is so intended thereby.
2.4 Following expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of
no further force and effect, except for any provisions which, by their express terms, survive the
expiration or termination of this Agreement.
2.5 If not already terminated by reason of any other provision in this Development
Agreement, or for any other reason, this Development Agreement shall automatically terminate
and be of no further force and effect upon completion of the Project pursuant to the terms of this
Development Agreement and any further amendments thereto and the issuance of all occupancy
permits and acceptance by CITY of all dedications and improvements as required by the
development of the Project.
Section 3. BINDING COVENANTS.
Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statute, from and after
recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records, all of the provisions, agreements, rights,
powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Development Agreement
shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation,
or otherwise) and assigns, and all persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any
portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law, or in any manner
whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by
merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All provisions of this Agreement shall be
enforceable during the Term hereof as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants and
benefits running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to California
Civil Code Section 1468.
Section 4. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT.
As a material part of the consideration of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise
provided herein, the parties agree that the Existing Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to
development of the Project. In connection with all subsequent discretionary actions by CITY
required to implement the Master Site Plan and any discretionary actions which CITY takes or
has the right to take under this Development Agreement relating to the Project, including any
review, approval, renewal, conditional approval or denial, CITY shall exercise its discretion or
take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Master Site Plan, the Existing
Land Use Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions expressly contained in this
Development Agreement. CITY shall accept and timely process, in the normal manner for
14
processing such matters as may then be applicable, all applications for further approvals with
respect to the Project called for or required under this Development Agreement, including, any
necessary site plan, tentative map, vesting tentative map, final map and any grading, construction
or other permits filed by OWNER in accordance with the Development Approvals.
Section 5. PROJECT LAND USES.
5 .1 The Property shall be used for such uses as may be permitted by the Development
Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Term, the density and intensity of use,
developable GF A, footprint square footage, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings
and structures, lot sizes, set back requirements, zoning, Public Improvements, and the provisions
for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the
Development Approvals, the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Development Agreement
pursuant to Section 65865.2 of the Development Agreement Statute.
5 .2 The OWNER shall comply with all applicable conditions of the Existing Land Use
Regulations and Development Approvals, and shall comply with all mitigation measures
imposed upon the Project pursuant to CEQA.
Section 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT.
6.1 Description of Permitted Development. The Permitted Development shall be as set
forth on the Master Site Plan. The Project shall be constructed substantially in conformance with
the Master Site Plan.
6.2 Final Site Plans. A Final Site Plan shall be processed for each Development Area in
the same manner as a conditional use permit at a noticed public hearing.
6.3 Parking Areas. The Parking Areas shall be constructed so that there will be sufficient
parking spaces available within the Property to serve the Project and each Development Area, as
depicted and substantially in conformance with the Master Site Plan, each Final Site Plan for a
Development Area, and the minimum parking requirements set forth in the Zoning Code. Prior
to issuance of a building permit for a Development Area, the Owner shall record a covenant
against the property within the Development Area in a form approved by the City Attorney's
Office stating that the use of the Parking Areas shall be limited to tenants, visitors, patrons,
invitees and other users of the permitted Development within the Development Area in question.
Said covenant shall also provide that the Parking Areas shall not be used to provide public
parking for patrons of Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, or the Grove of Anaheim or any other
off-site public or private facilities without a prior written agreement between OWNER and CITY
setting fmih CITY's ability to seek reimbursement for the full cost associated with the use of any
Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff that may be needed for traffic control
purposes relating to such public parking and subject to such other and further conditions as may
be required by CITY.
15
Section 7. DENSITY OF PERMITTED BUILDINGS.
Except as set forth in Section 10, the Permitted Development shall be between the
minimum and maximum sizes including the minimum and maximum dwelling unit range
established and the density range proposed on the Development Summary table attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit I, and shall not exceed the maximum heights and maximum
footprints set forth on the Master Site Plan. Any transfers of density between Development
Areas shall be governed by Section 10.
Section 8. ENFORCEMENT.
Unless this Development Agreement is terminated or cancelled pursuant to the provisions
of this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement or any amendment hereto, shall
be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter in any applicable
general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or building ordinance
adopted by CITY which alters or amends the rules, regulations or policies of Development of the
Project as provided in this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the
Development Agreement Statute; provided, however, that the limitations of this Section shall not
apply to changes mandated by State or Federal laws or other permissible changes or new
regulations as more particularly set forth in Section 25 of this Development Agreement.
Section 9. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES.
In addition to performing any other obligations heretofore imposed as conditions of
approval, as set forth in Exhibit C, as material consideration for the CITY's entering into this
Development Agreement, OWNER shall undertake the construction and installation of the
following Public Improvements required to support the Project and to enhance area-wide traffic
circulation and emergency police and fire protection service within the time periods as set forth
below and in conformance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. CITY shall cooperate with
OWNER for the purpose of coordinating all Public Improvements constructed under the
Development Approvals or this Development Agreement to existing or newly constructed public
improvements, whether located within or outside of the Property. OWNER shall be responsible
for and use good faith efforts to acquire any right(s)-of-way necessary to construct the Public
Improvements required by, or otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this
Development Agreement or any Development Approvals. Should it become necessary due to
OWNER's failure or inability to acquire said right(s)-of-way within four months after OWNER
begins its efforts to so acquire said right(s)-of-way, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the
necessary right(s)-of-way to construct the Public Improvements as required by, or otherwise
necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement and, if necessary in
accordance with the procedures established by State law, and the limitations hereinafter set forth
in this Section, CITY may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn said required
right(s)-of-way. OWNER agrees to pay for all costs associated with said acquisition and
condemnation proceedings. If the CITY cannot make the proper findings or, if for some other
reason under the condemnation laws, CITY is prevented from acquiring the necessary
16
right(s)-of-way to enable OWNER to construct the Public Improvements required by, or
otherwise necessary to comply with the conditions of, this Development Agreement, then the
parties agree to amend this Development Agreement to modify OWNER's obligations
accordingly. Any such required modification shall involve the substitution of other
considerations or obligations by OWNER (of similar value) as are negotiated in good faith
between the Parties hereto. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a
determination or resolution of necessity by CITY to initiate condemnation proceedings, it being
expressly understood that the CITY has reserved its discretion to approve or disapprove a
resolution of necessity (pursuant to Article 2 [ commencing with Section 1245 .21 O] of Chapter 4
of Title 7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure).
Public Improvements that are required to be constructed as part of the Development
Approvals shall be designed and constructed, and shall contain those improvements and
facilities, as reasonably required by the applicable CITY Agency that is to accept, and in some
cases operate and maintain, the Public Improvements in keeping with the then-current CITY-
wide standards and requirements of the CITY Agency as if it were to design and construct the
Public Improvement on its own at that time.
In connection with all of the Public Improvements, OWNER shall engage a contractor
that is duly licensed in California and qualified to complete the work (the "Contractor"). The
Contractor shall contract directly with OWNER pursuant to an agreement to be entered into by
OWNER and Contractor (the "Construction Contract"), which shall: (i) be a guaranteed
maximum price contract; (ii) require the Contractor or OWNER to obtain and maintain bonds for
one-hundred (100) percent of the cost of construction for performance and fifty (50) percent of
payment for labor and materials (and include the CITY and OWNER as dual obligees under the
bonds), or provide a letter of credit or other security satisfactory to CITY, in accordance with the
requirements of the Subdivision Code; (iii) require the Contractor to obtain and maintain
customary insurance, including workers compensation in statutory amounts, employer's liability,
general liability, builders all-risk; (iv) release the CITY from any and all claims relating to the
construction, including but not limited to mechanics liens and stop notices; (v) subject to the
rights of any Mortgagee that forecloses on the Property, include the CITY as a third party
beneficiary, with all rights to rely on the work, receive the benefit of all warranties, and
prospectively assume OWNER's obligations and enforce the terms and conditions of the
Construction Contract as if CITY were an original party thereto; and (vi) require that the CITY
be included as a third party beneficiary, with all rights to rely on the work product, receive the
benefit of all warranties and covenants, and prospectively assume Contractor's rights in the event
of any termination of the Construction Contract, relative to all work performed by the Project's
architect and engineer.
9 .1 Public Park. The PTMU Overlay Zone requires on-site public parks to be
dedicated and improved by a developer of property 8.0 acres or more in size with residential
development totaling more than 325 units at a minimum size of 44 square feet for each
residential unit. Notwithstanding that requirement, OWNER will dedicate, develop and maintain
the Public Park and Public Linear Park as identified on the Master Site Plan. The value for the
17
parkland dedication for the Public Park and Public Linear Park, as determined pursuant to the
formula set forth in Exhibit D-4 and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C, will be credited
against the overall Platinum Triangle Park Fees paid for the Project as set forth in Section 13.2.4.
Consistent with existing Code requirements and policies, no credit will be given for
improvements.
9.2 Utilities (Water, Electrical, Gas, Sewer, and Drainage). OWNER shall construct
the Public Improvements necessary for the provision of requisite water, electrical, gas, sewer and
drainage requirements for Project as more fully set forth in the Development Approvals.
OWNER shall construct and relocate utilities as may be required to provide services to the
Permitted Development on the Property or that are displaced by the construction of the Permitted
Development, including, but not limited to, materials for water, storm drain and sewer. As
OWNER submits detailed construction plans in order to obtain building permits for the
Permitted Development and/or the size and nature of the Project varies, the utilities that OWNER
will construct or relocate may be revised accordingly by the CITY.
9.2.1 Water Service. OWNER will provide engineering studies to size the water mains
for ultimate development within the Project. Said engineering studies will be conducted prior to
rendering of water service or signature approval of the final water improvement plans, whichever
occurs first. The studies shall be subject to the approval of the General Manager of the CITY's
Public Utilities Department or his authorized designee. Alternatively, at OWNER'S election, the
water system may be constructed incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is
adequate to provide municipal demands and fire flow protection for the proposed development
phasing and the water facilities installed under said incremental phasing are sized to provide the
future municipal demands and fire protection for the Project. OWNER shall conform with Rule
15A of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations. OWNER shall conform with Rule 15D
of the CITY's Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations All public water facilities shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the CITY's Water Engineering Division's standards
and specifications.
9.2.2 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains. Prior to final building and zoning inspections
for the first building within the Permitted Development, OWNER will construct all sanitary
sewers and storm drains and appurtenant structures (including treatment control BMP's as
required by the WQMP) to serve the ultimate development of the Property as provided by area
wide engineering studies to be conducted prior to issuance of any building permits for the first
building within the Permitted Development and updated prior to the issuance of any building
permits for each subsequent building within the Permitted Development. All studies shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OWNER will construct improvements identified in
said studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide capacity for the proposed
development phasing.
18
9.3 Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements; Dedication; Maintenance.
9.3.1 Timing, Phasing and Sequencing. The timing, phasing and sequence of the
construction of Public Improvements and facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the
phasing and sequence set forth in the Infrastructure Phasing Plan attached hereto as Exhibit H of
Development Agreement. The Infrastructure Phasing Plan reflects the Parties' mutual
acknowledgement that the need for certain Public Improvements is related to the amount and
location of new residential units and commercial GF A proposed for each Development Area.
Prior to recordation of the Master Tract Map, OWNER shall be required to provide a detailed
Infrastructure Phasing Plan satisfactory to the Planning Director, the Community Services
Director, the Public Works Director and the Public Utilities General Manager with a detailed
phasing plan relating to phasing and sequence of the Public Improvements. CITY may request
OWNER to revise the Infrastructure Phasing Plan, subject to the Planning Director's approval
and confirmation that the revised Infrastructure Phasing Plan is not anticipated to result in any
new environmental impacts or infrastructure requirements. The Parties understand and agree that
any Public Improvement identified in this Agreement may become part of a larger CITY system
and that the proposed Public Improvements must be constructed so as to integrate and work with
the existing CITY systems in every material respect. The Public Improvements will be
constructed in accordance with the CITY-approved Infrastructure Phasing Plan.
9 .3 .2 Maintenance and Operation of Community and Public Improvements by
OWNER and Successors. The Parties agree that OWNER shall own and maintain in good and
workmanlike condition, and otherwise in accordance with all applicable laws and any applicable
permits, all Public Improvements until such time that CITY accepts dedication of such Public
Improvements pursuant to section 1.32 above. The provisions of this Section 9.3.2 shall survive
the expiration of this Agreement. In order to ensure that the Community Improvements owned
by OWNER and the Public Improvements not yet accepted by the CITY for maintenance are
maintained in a clean, good and workmanlike condition, OWNER shall record in the Official
Records of the County of Orange at such time as the Planning Director with the advice of the
City Attorney deems necessary and appropriate a declaration of covenants, conditions, and
restrictions ("CC&Rs") imposing against each owner of a lot in the Master Final Tract Map and
in that portion of Tract No. 16859 not re-subdivided by Tentative Tract Map No. 17703 the
obligation to maintain the Community Improvements and the Public Improvements. The CC&Rs
shall include a requirement that a master owner's association ("Master Owners' Association")
provide all necessary and ongoing maintenance and repairs to the Community Improvements and
the Public Improvements, at no cost to the CITY, with appropriate owners' dues to provide for
such maintenance. Any failure of the Master Owners' Association to perform its obligations to
provide all necessary and ongoing maintenance and repairs shall not be considered an Event of
Default or otherwise be held against the OWNER under this Agreement and the CITY's remedy
shall be its enforcement rights under the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs identified herein shall be subject
to reasonable review and approval by the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Planning
Director and shall expressly provide the CITY with a third party right to enforce the maintenance
and repair provisions of the CC&Rs.
19
The Parties intend the Option Agreement to include, but not be limited to, the following
material terms:
(a) The CITY shall have the option, at its election, to either acquire in fee or lease
space within either Development Area B or Development Area C, as described on
the Master Site Plan. OWNER will deliver notice to the CITY prior to submittal of
a Final Site Plan for the first of those two Development Areas proposed for
development, advising the CITY that it may exercise its option to acquire or lease
space within the commercial GF A to be included within that Development Area.
The CITY may elect to exercise its option to either acquire in fee or lease the space
within that Development Area, or it may elect not to do so and await notice from the
OWNER prior to the submittal of a Final Site Plan for the second Development
Area. If the CITY elects not to exercise its option to acquire or lease space pursuant
to OWNER's notice for the first Development Area, the CITY will retain an option
to acquire or lease space within the second Development Area. If the CITY does
not timely exercise its option to acquire or lease space within either Development
Area B or Development Area C, the Parties understand and agree that it shall be
deemed that CITY has elected to not acquire or lease such space in the Project, and
OWNER may proceed with processing final site plans with no further obligation to
sell or lease space for a Library/Community Center to the CITY.
(b) If the City wishes to exercise its option to acquire or lease the
Library/Community Center space, the CITY must notify OWNER in writing within
sixty (60) calendar days of the receipt of OWNER's notice that the CITY will
exercise its option to acquire or lease space. If the CITY elects to exercise its
option to acquire or lease space, the Parties shall meet to discuss the OWNER's
preliminary estimated range for the rental value for the space or the sale price for
the CITY's acquisition of the space, as the case may be, within sixty (60) calendar
days following the CITY's delivery of notice to OWNER of CITY's election to
exercise its option. The Parties understand and agree that OWNER will not be able
to estimate the exact sales price or rental value at this stage since the design(s) for
the Development Area in question will only be conceptual at the time that CITY
submits its notice to OWNER of CITY's election to acquire or lease the space.
( c) If the CITY properly exercises its option and chooses to lease or acquire the
space, the amount of the purchase price (if CITY elects to acquire the space in fee)
or the rent payable by the CITY to OWNER (if CITY elects to lease the space) will
ultimately be determined by an appraisal method using the "cost plus" method of
appraisal, and shall consider and include, at a minimum, the following: (1) design
and engineering costs for the Library/Community Center space; (2) proportionate
share of site development costs for the Library/Community Center Space; (3) fees
and permits costs in connection with the Library/Community Center space; (4)
construction costs in connection with the Library/Community Center space; (5)
allocated land costs for the Library/Community Center space; and (6) three percent
21
(3.0%) overhead/management allowance in connection with the Library/Community
Center space ( collectively, the "City Space Construction Costs"). The amount of
the sales price or rent will be based on the "cost plus" appraisal approach, and the
allocated land value will be based upon the unimproved land value (i.e., the land
without the building in which the Library/Community Center is to be located) at the
time the City acquires or leases the space (as established by an appraiser using the
"cost plus" methodology above), but at a minimum shall cover all of the OWNER's
costs in connection with City Space Construction Costs for the space acquired or
leased by the CITY. In the event the City acquires or leases the space, the Parties
agree that in no event will the sum total of the overall purchase price under the
purchase and sale contract, or lease payments under the lease agreement, be less
than the total costs of the City Space Construction Costs plus six percent (6%).
Therefore, if CITY acquires the Library/Community Center space in fee, the CITY's
cost to acquire the space will be one hundred six percent (106%) of the City Space
Construction Costs. If the City leases the Library/Community Center space, the
annual lease payment shall be six percent (6%) of the City Space Construction
Costs, which will be fixed for the entire term of the lease. Also, to the extent the
CITY elects to lease the Library/Community Center space, such lease shall be a
''triple net lease," under which CITY shall be responsible for, among other things,
all real estate taxes (to the extent applicable based on CITY's status as a public
agency), building insurance, operating costs and maintenance for the space. The
lease term shall be not less than twenty (20) years, but may be longer if CITY and
OWNER agree to a longer term in the Option Agreement.
(d) OWNER agrees to share all backup and supporting information and
documentation to show the City Space Construction Costs. Once the
Library/Community Center space has been fully engineered and designed, but
before OWNER seeks final approval of its Final Site Plan for the Development
Area containing the Library/Community Center space, OWNER will provide to
CITY the final design and engineering costs, and OWNER's updated sales price or
lease amount (depending on the CITY's election) for the Library/Community
Center. The Parties shall then meet to determine the amount of the sales price or
rent for the Library/Community Center space pursuant to the appraisal method
identified in 9.6(c) above. Additional detail on the timing for this transaction,
estimation of the sales price or lease value, finalizing the amount of the purchase
price or rent to be paid by CITY, and the term of a lease shall be contained within
the Option Agreement. The Option Agreement shall be finalized and executed by
the Parties prior to the submittal of a Final Site Plan for Development Area B or
Development Area C, whichever OWNER determines it desires to submit first.
(e) The OWNER will furnish all labor and materials to construct and complete in a
good, expeditious, workmanlike and substantial manner the improvements to the
space designated for sale or rental to CITY as a Library/Community Center in
accordance with a design to be agreed upon by the Parties. All such work shall be
22
To the extent permitted by this Agreement, OWNER shall have the right to develop the Project
in such order and time as determined by OWNER in the exercise of its subjective business
judgment, but subject to the CITY's approval of a Final Site Plan for each Development Area
and subject to the Term Extension Milestones set forth in Exhibit G attached hereto.
Upon commencement of any work in a Development Area, OWNER shall continue the
work at a commercially reasonable pace in light of market conditions to completion of that
Development Area (including all Community Improvements and Public Improvements within or
serving the Development Area) in accordance with applicable permits and requirements under
this Agreement to ensure that there are no material gaps between the start and completion of all
work within that Development Area, subject to Force Majeure.
Section 17. EXISTING USES.
CITY and OWNER agree that those existing legally established uses on the Property may
be retained until the Project is implemented. When those existing uses are demolished, no credit
for any such demolished square footage for which Interim Development Fees have not been paid
will be given OWNER against Interim Development Fees due on a square footage basis as
provided for in this Development Agreement. OWNER will pay the full Interim Development
Fees for Permitted Development constructed pursuant to the Master Site Plan.
Section 18. FUTURE APPROVALS.
18.1 Basis for Denying or Conditional Granting Future Approvals. Before OWNER can
begin grading on the Property or other development of the Property, OWNER must secure
several additional permits and/or approvals from CITY. The parties agree that to the extent said
Development Approvals are ministerial in nature, CITY shall not, through the enactment or
enforcement of any subsequent ordinances, rules, regulations, initiatives, policies, requirements,
guidelines, or other constraints, withhold such approvals as a means of blocking construction or
of imposing conditions on the Project which were not imposed during an earlier approval period
unless CITY has been ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, CITY and OWNER will use their best efforts to ensure each other that all
applications for and approvals of grading permits, building permits or other developmental
approvals necessary for OWNER to develop the Project in accordance with the Master Site Plan
are sought and processed in a timely manner.
18.2 Standard of Review. The rules, regulations and policies that apply to any additional
Development Approvals which OWNER must secure prior to the Development of the Property
shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations, as defined in this Development Agreement.
18.3 Future Amendments to Master Site Plan. Future amendments to all or a portion of
the Master Site Plan which increase the intensity or density of the Development of the Property
beyond the maximum range set forth on the Development Summary Table, or change the
permitted uses of the Property and are not among those described in Section 10 of this
28
Development Agreement, may subject the portion or portions of the Project being amended or
affected by the amendment to any change in the CITY's General Plan, zoning designations and
rules applicable to the Property and further environmental review and possible mitigation of
adverse impacts under CEQA in effect at the time of such amendment. Any such amendment to
the Master Site Plan shall be processed concurrently with the processing of an amendment to this
Development Agreement. It is the desire and intent of both parties, except as set forth herein,
that any such future amendment of the Master Site Plan will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise
impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Development Agreement with
respect to the un-amended portions of the Master Site Plan.
Section 19. AMENDMENT.
19.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either party may propose an amendment to this
Development Agreement.
19 .2 Procedure. The procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this
Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this
Development Agreement in the first instance. Such procedures are set forth in Sections 2, 3 and
5 of the Procedures Resolution.
19 .3 Consent. Except as provided elsewhere within this Development Agreement, any
amendment to this Development Agreement shall require the consent of both parties. No
amendment of this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set
forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto.
19 .4 Amendments. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parties
acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that
changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this
Development Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect
to the details of the Development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in
general terms under this Development Agreement. If and when the parties find that changes or
adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Development
Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments
as specified in the Development Approvals.
19.5 Effect of Amendment to Development Agreement. The parties agree that except as
expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Development Agreement will
not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive or otherwise impact any other rights, duties or obligations
of either party under this Development Agreement.
Section 20. NON-CANCELLATION OF RIGHTS.
Subject to defeasance pursuant to Sections26, 27 or 28 of this Development Agreement,
the Master Site Plan and other Development Approvals as provided for in this Development
29
period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development
Agreement. If the City Council finds that OWNER has so complied, the review for that period
shall be deemed concluded. The Planning Director shall notify OWNER in writing whether
OWNER has complied with the terms of this Agreement. If the City Council finds and
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith
with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement for the period under review, the
Planning Director shall notify OWNER in writing and OWNER shall be given sixty (60) days to
cure such non-compliance and if OWNER diligently and continuously pursues curing such non-
compliance and the actions required to cure such non-compliance cannot reasonably be cured
within sixty (60) days, then OWNER shall be entitled to cure, correct or remedy such non-
compliance within such additional time as is reasonably necessary, but in no event more than one
hundred twenty (120) days. If during the cure period, OWNER fails to cure such noncompliance
or is not making reasonable good faith progress towards such end, then the City Council may, at
its discretion, proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time
schedule for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 28 of this
Development Agreement. If such non-compliance is not cured within the applicable period
provided above, it shall thereafter constitute a "Default". The CITY's failure to timely complete
the annual review is not deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so at a later date.
26.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the periodic review set forth in
this Development Agreement, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this
Development Agreement upon the giving of written notice thereof to OWNER. Within thirty
(30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of
OWNER's good faith compliance with this Development Agreement and such review and
determination shall proceed in the manner as otherwise provided in this Development
Agreement.
Section 27. DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION.
27.1 Default. For purposes of this Agreement and except as otherwise specifically
provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the following shall constitute a default under this
Agreement: (i) the failure to make any payment within ninety (90) days of when due; and (ii) the
failure to perform or fulfill any other material term, provision, obligation, or covenant hereunder
and the continuation of such failure for a period of sixty (60) calendar days following a written
notice of default and demand for compliance; provided, however, if a cure cannot reasonably be
completed within thirty (30) days, then it shall not be considered a default if a cure is commenced
within said thirty (30) day period and diligently prosecuted to completion thereafter.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if OWNER fails to strictly comply with the Term Extension
Milestones described in Exhibit G, such failure shall be considered a failure of a condition and
not a default. Any such failure of condition shall entitle the CITY to terminate this Agreement
without further notice or opportunity to satisfy the failed condition.
27.2 Notice of Default. Prior to the initiation of any action for relief specified in
Section 27.3 below, the Party claiming default shall deliver to the other Party a written notice of
33
hereby expressly waived) for (a) OWNER's failure to pay sums to CITY as and when due
under this Agreement, but subject to any express conditions for such payment set forth in
this Agreement, and (b) OWNER's failure to make payment due under any Indemnity in
this Agreement, (2) the CITY shall have the right to recover any and all damages relating
to OWNER's failure to construct Public Improvements in accordance with CITY-
approved plans and specifications and in accordance with all applicable laws (but only to
the extent that the CITY first collects against any security, including but not limited to
bonds, for such Public Improvements), and (3) either Party shall have the right to recover
attorneys' fees and costs, as set forth in Section 31.9, when awarded by an arbitrator or a
court with jurisdiction. For purposes of the foregoing, "actual damages" shall mean the
actual amount of the sum due and owing under this Agreement, with interest as provided
by law, together with such judgment collection activities as may be ordered by the
judgment, and no additional sums.
In addition: (1) CITY neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility pursuant to this
Agreement to review, inspect, supervise, approve, or inform OWNER of any matter in
connection with the design, engineering, permitting, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair, or replacement of the Permitted Development or any of the
Community Improvements or Public Improvements and OWNER shall rely entirely on its
own judgment with respect to such matters; provided, that nothing herein is intended to
release CITY from whatever obligations it may have pursuant to applicable laws
independent of this Agreement; and (2) by virtue of this Agreement, CITY shall not be
directly or indirectly liable or responsible for any loss or injury of any kind to any person
or property resulting from any construction on, or occupancy or use of (with the exception
of occupancy or use of the Library/Community Room space discussed in Section 9.6
above, which shall be the CITY's responsibility), the Property in general or the portions
of the Property on which any Community Improvements or Public Improvements are
situated, whether arising from: (a) any defect in any building, grading, landscaping, or
other on-site or off-site improvement constructed by or on behalf of OWNER, (b) any act
or omission of OWNER or any of its agents, employees, independent contractors,
licensees, lessees, or invitees, or ( c) any accident on the Property or any fire or other
casualty or hazard thereon.
27.4 No Waiver. Failure or delay in giving notice of default shall not constitute a
waiver of default, nor shall it change the time of default. Except as otherwise expressly provided
in this Agreement, any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to
any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, nor
shall it deprive any such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings that
it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies.
27.5 Joint and Several Liability. If OWNER consists of more than one person or entity
with respect to any real property within the Property or any obligation under this Agreement, then
the obligations of each person and/or entity shall be joint and several.
35
27.6 Specific Performance. CITY and OWNER acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to
carry out its obligations under this Development Agreement, CITY shall have the right to refuse
to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to
pursuant to this Development Agreement. If CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to
this Development Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER
in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, CITY shall be entitled to
specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The
CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and
CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed
with the development of the Project in any manner.
27.7 Legal Actions; Jurisdiction and Venue. Subject to the limitations on rights and
remedies expressly set forth herein, either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or
remedy any Default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or
attempted violation, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties
hereto or seek declaratory relief with respect to its rights, obligations or interpretations of this
Agreement or pursue other remedies under applicable law. Notwithstanding any other provision
or limitations on rights and remedies set forth in this Agreement, either Party may institute legal
action to resolve any dispute regarding interpretation of the terms of this Agreement. Any action
at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by either Party hereto for the purpose
of enforcing, construing, or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be
filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and to the
maximum extent permitted by law the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for
the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court.
Section 28. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION.
If pursuant to Section 28.1 of this Development Agreement, CITY elects to modify or
terminate this Development Agreement or establish a revised time schedule for compliance as
herein provided, then CITY shall proceed as set forth in this Section.
28.1 Notice to OWNER. CITY shall give notice to OWNER of City Council's intention
to proceed to modify or terminate this Development Agreement or establish a time schedule for
compliance within ten (10) days of making the CITY's findings.
28.2 Public Hearing. The City Council shall set and give notice of a public hearing on
modification, termination or a time schedule for compliance to be held within forty-days after the
City Council gives notice to OWNER.
28.3 Decision. The City Council shall announce its findings and decisions on whether
this Development Agreement is to be terminated, how this Development Agreement is to be
modified or the provisions of the Development Agreement with which OWNER must comply
and a time schedule therefor not more than ten (10) days following completion of the public
hearing.
36
portion thereof, so transferred, except to the extent OWNER is not in default under the terms of
this Development Agreement.
29.2 Release Upon Transfer. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Property
may be subdivided following the Development Agreement Date. One or more of such
subdivided parcels may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned or transferred to persons for
development by them in accordance with the provisions of this Development Agreement.
Effective upon such sale, mortgage, hypothecation, assignment or transfer, the obligations of
OWNER shall become several and not joint, except as to OWNER's obligations set forth in
Section 9 of this Development Agreement. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of O WNER's
rights and interests under this Development Agreement as permitted pursuant to Section 30.1
above, OWNER shall be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement with
respect to the Property, or portion thereof so transferred, provided that (a) OWNER is not then in
default under this Development Agreement, (b) OWNER has provided to CITY the notice of
such transfer specified in Section 30.1 above, (c) the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a
written agreement in which (i) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (ii) the
transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the obligations of OWNER under this
Development Agreement and the Development Approvals with respect to the property, or portion
thereof, so transferred and ( d) the transferee provides CITY with security equivalent to any
security provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations under this Development
Agreement or the Development Approvals. Non-compliance by any such transferee with the
terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall not be deemed a default hereunder or
grounds for termination hereof or constitute cause for CITY to initiate enforcement action against
other persons then owning or holding interest in the Property or any portion thereof and not
themselves in default hereunder. Upon completion of any phase of development of the Project as
determined by CITY, CITY may release that completed phase from any further obligations under
this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section shall be self-executing and shall
not require the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Any and all
successors, assigns and transferees of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits and
obligations of OWNER as used in this Development Agreement and the term "OWNER" as used
in this Development Agreement shall refer to any such successors, assigns and transferees unless
expressly provided herein to the contrary.
Section 30. NO CONFLICTING ENACTMENTS.
By entering into this Development Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is
obtaining vested rights to develop the Project in accordance with and subject to the terms and
conditions of this Development Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the
Development Approvals. OWNER agrees that all improvements it constructs on the Property
shall be done in accordance with this Agreement, the Development Approvals, the Existing Land
Use Regulations, and in accordance with all applicable laws. By entering into this Development
Agreement and relying thereupon, CITY is securing certain public benefits which promote the
public health, safety and general welfare. CITY therefore agrees that, except as provided in
Section 25 of this Development Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of
38
CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure which relates to the rate, timing
or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and which is
inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Agreement.
Section 31. GENERAL.
31.1 Force Maieure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the time within
which OWNER shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be
extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act
is delayed unavoidably by strikes, lock-outs, acts of God, failure or inability to secure materials
or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory
body, initiative or referenda, moratoria, enemy action, civil disturbances, fire, unavoidable
casualties, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of OWNER. A Party wishing to
invoke this Section shall notify in writing the other Party to this Development Agreement of that
intention within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any such cause for delay and shall, at
that time, specify the reasons therefor, the provisions of this Development Agreement that will be
delayed as a result, and the period of such extension, if known, or, if not known, the Party's best
estimate thereof. The failure to so notify the other Party within that period as to the cause for
delay shall constitute a waiver of any right to later rely upon this Section with respect to that
cause.
31.2 Construction of Development Agreement. The language in all parts of this
Development Agreement shall in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its
fair meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of
construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be
employed in interpreting this Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in the
negotiation and preparation hereof. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this
Development Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in
resolving questions of constructions. The parties understand and agree that this Development
Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall it be construed to constitute, an impermissible
attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of CITY, and in particular,
the CITY's police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Development
Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY's
governmental powers over the Property.
31.3 Severability. If any provision of this Development Agreement shall be adjudged to
be invalid, void or unenforceable, such provision shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any
other provision hereof, unless such judgment affects a material part of this Development
Agreement, the parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portions of
this Development Agreement not adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal. In the event that all or
any portion of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Development
Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement
of intention by the parties; and the parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps
necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in
39
order to make valid this Development Agreement or that portion which is found to be
unenforceable. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Development Agreement, in the
event that any material provision of this Development Agreement is found to be unenforceable,
void or voidable, OWNER or CITY may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance
with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the Procedures Resolution.
31.4 Hold Harmless Agreement; Indemnity.
31.4.1 OWNER and CITY hereby mutually agree to, and shall hold each other,
each other's elective and appointive councils, boards, commissions, officers, partners, agents,
representatives and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for
personal injury, including death, and from claims for property damage which may arise from the
activities of the other's or the other's contractors', subcontractors', agents', or employees' which
relate to the Project whether such activities be by OWNER or CITY, or by any of the OWNER's
or the CITY's contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons indirectly employed by,
or acting as agent for OWNER or any of the OWNER's or the CITY's contractors or
subcontractors. OWNER and CITY agree to and shall defend the other and the other's elective
and appointive councils, boards, commissioners, officers, partners, agents, representatives and
employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damage caused or alleged to have
been caused by reason of the aforementioned activities which relate to the Project.
31.4.2 From and after the execution of this Agreement, OWNER hereby agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY and its employees, officers, City Council
members, Planning Commissioners, representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of all such
persons, and each of them, from and against all losses and liabilities related directly or indirectly
to, or arising out of or in connection with (i) any of OWNER' s acts or omissions under, related
to, or in any respect connected with this Agreement and/or the development, ownership ( or
possession), and operation of the Property and/or the Project, and/or OWNER's activities on the
Property (or the activities of OWNER's agents, employees, lessees, representatives, licensees,
guests, invitees, successors, assigns, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors on
the Property), including without limitation the construction of the Project or the use or condition
of the Project, (ii) any claim arising from the ownership ( or possession), operation or use of the
Property and/or the Project, including any claim relating to or arising from the presence on or
under, or the escape, seepage, leakage, spillage, discharge, emission, or release on or from the
Property and/or the Project of any Hazardous Materials, and any losses and liabilities arising
from or related to any governmental requirements applicable to Hazardous Materials located on
the Property. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement which is or appears to be to the
contrary, this indemnity shall survive any termination or cancellation of this Agreement,
regardless of how caused.
31.5 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action or
proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the
validity of any provision of this Development Agreement and/or the Development Approvals,
other actions taken pursuant to CEQA, or other approvals under State or CITY codes, statutes,
40
regulations or requirements, and any combination thereof relating to the Project or any portion
thereof ("Third Party Challenge"), the Parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in
defending said action and the validity of each provision of this Development Agreement;
however, OWNER shall be liable for all legal expenses and costs incurred in defending any such
action and shall reimburse the CITY for its actual costs in defense of the action or proceeding,
including, but not limited to the time and expenses of the City Attorney's Office and any
consultants; provided, however, (i) OWNER shall have the right to monthly invoices for all such
costs, and (ii) OWNER may elect to terminate this Agreement, and upon any such termination,
OWNER's and CITY's obligations to defend the Third Party Challenge shall cease and OWNER
shall have no responsibility to reimburse any CITY defense costs incurred after such termination
date. OWNER shall Indemnify the CITY from any other liability incurred by the CITY, its
officers, and its employees as the result of any Third Party Challenge, including any award to
opposing counsel of attorneys' fees or costs, except where such award is the result of the willful
misconduct of CITY or its officers or employees. This section shall survive any judgment
invalidating all or any part of this Agreement.. OWNER shall be entitled to choose legal counsel
to defend against any such legal action and shall pay any attorneys' fees awarded against CITY or
OWNER, or both, resulting from any such legal action. OWNER shall be entitled to any award
of attorneys' fees arising out of any such legal action.
31.6 Public Agency Coordination. CITY and OWNER shall cooperate and use their
respective best efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with
other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Property or the Project.
31.7 Initiative Measures. Both CITY and OWNER intend that this Development
Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure,
moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation (whether relating to the rate,
timing or sequencing of the Development or construction of all or any part of the Project and
whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether
tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements
to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, and which
Agreement shall apply to the Project to the extent such initiative, measure, moratorium,
referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation is inconsistent or in conflict with this
Development Agreement. Should an initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute,
ordinance, or other limitation be enacted by the citizens of CITY which would preclude
construction of all or any part of the Project, and to the extent such initiative, measure,
moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development
Agreement, OWNER shall have no recourse against CITY pursuant to the Development
Agreement, but shall retain all other rights, claims and causes of action under this Development
Agreement not so invalidated and any and all other rights, claims and causes of action as law or
in equity which OWNER may have independent of this Development Agreement with respect to
the project. The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit OWNER's right to appeal any such
determination that such initiative, measure, referendum, statute, ordinance or other limitation
invalidates or prevails over all or any part of this Development Agreement. CITY agrees to
41
cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Development Agreement
in full force and effect, provided OWNER shall reimburse CITY for its out-of-pocket expenses
incurred directly in connection with such cooperation and CITY shall not be obligated to institute
a lawsuit or other court proceedings in this connection.
31.8 Attorneys' Fees. In the event that either Party hereto brings any action or files any
proceeding against the other for default under this Agreement or to enforce any provision in this
Development Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to
recover its reasonable expenses, attorneys' fees and costs from the losing Party. For purposes of
this Agreement, "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs" shall mean the fees and expenses of
counsel to the Party, which may include printing, duplicating and other expenses, air freight
charges, hiring of experts, and fees billed for paralegals. The attorneys' fees so recovered shall
include fees for prosecuting or defending any appeal and shall be awarded for any supplemental
proceedings until the final judgment is satisfied in full. In addition to the foregoing award of
attorneys' fees to the prevailing Party, the prevailing Party in any lawsuit on this Development
Agreement shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees incurred in any post judgment proceedings to
collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the
merger of this Development Agreement into any judgment on this Development Agreement.
31.9 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power
accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other party under any of the
provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed
to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants or conditions to be
performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of non-
performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof.
31.10 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Development Agreement on
behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this
Development Agreement on behalf of his/her partnership and represents that he/she has the
authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations hereunder.
31.11 Notice.
31.11. 1 To OWNER. Any notice required or permitted to be given by CITY to OWNER
under or pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing
and delivered personally to an officer of OWNER or mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid,
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed; to OWNER as follows:
PT Metro, LLC
c/o Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
25 Enterprise, Suite 310
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Attention: Ryan Gatchalian
42
31.12 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Development
Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify,
construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the
provisions of this Development Agreement.
31.13 Consent. Any consent required by the parties in carrying out the terms of this
Development Agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld.
31.14 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with the other
to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this
Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement.
Upon the request of either Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments
and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this
Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development
Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development
Agreement.
31.15 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Development Agreement
has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute in
effect as of the Development Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 24.1 above, to
the extent that subsequent amendments to the Governrnent Code would affect the provisions of
this Development Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Development
Agreement unless necessary for this Development Agreement to be enforceable or unless this
Development Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Development
Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Development Agreement
Date.
31.16 Governing Law. This Development Agreement, including, without limitation, its
existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the Parties shall be
governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
31.17 Effect on Title. OWNER and CITY agree that this Development Agreement shall
not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this
Development Agreement has terminated.
31.18 Mortgagee Protection. Entering into or a breach of this Development Agreement
shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on
any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform
OWNER's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu
thereof. Any person, including a Mortgagee, who acquires title to all or any portion of the
Property by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise shall succeed to
all of the rights and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement and shall take title subject to
44
31.33 Organization and Standing of OWNER. OWNER is a limited liability company
duly organized, qualified and validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and duly qualified to do business in the State of California, and has all requisite power
and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Development Agreement.
OWNER has provided to the CITY true and complete copies of all of their governing documents,
and the percentage ownership interests reflected therein are accurate as of the date of this
Development Agreement.
31.34 Authorization and Consents. The execution, delivery and performance of this
Development Agreement is consistent with OWNER's articles of organization and operating
agreement and has been duly authorized by all necessary action of OWNER's managing
members. All consents or approvals of OWNER's members required in connection with the
execution and delivery by OWNER of this Development Agreement will have been obtained and
delivered to CITY on or before the Development Agreement Date.
31.35 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of each and every
covenant and obligation to be performed by the Parties under this Agreement.
31.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the
sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. No other
person or entity shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signatures on next page]
48
"OWNER":
PT METRO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability co mpan y
By: Lennar Hom es of California, Inc.,
a Californ ia corporation,
Its so le memb er
By ~ nGatchalian
Vice Presi dent
l 12024-v4trJR
50
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE, LOTS A, B, MARKET STREET, BRYANT
STREET, GRANVILLE DRIVE, TRIAD STREET, UNION STREET, MERIDIAN LANE,
METRO DRIVE, PARK LANE AND WESTSIDE DRIVE OF TRACT NO. 16859 AS SHOWN
ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 892, PAGES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
EXIDBIT "C"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1'RIOR1!0APPROVAL OFMASTEllTI!NTA1!.[VE1!RACTMAP ·•·• .. ·
1 Prior to the approval of the Master Tentative Tract Map, information and plans
shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works
Department for review and approval of the following:
(a) Sewer and storm drain manhole Locations and Detour Plan Criteria
(b) Trash truck turning radius
The approved inf01mation shall be shown on each Street Improvement Plan
submitted to the Public Works Department.
2 Prior to the approval of the Master Tentative Tract Map, the boundaries of the
numbered residential/mixed-use lots shall coincide with the boundaries of the
development areas as identified in the Master Site Plan. These areas may be further
subdivided in connection with the processing of subsequent builder tentative tract or
parcel maps provided that a Final Site Plan showing the configuration of the
subdivided lots and the proposed buildings is approved prior to or concurrently with
the builder tentative tract or parcel map.
PRIORTO ()R.WJTIJREG<iRI>ATifJNOFFIMAi MASTER11lA€TMAP
3 Prior to or with recordation of the Final Master Tract Map, the property
owner/developer shall finalize the abandonment of any existing public roadways,
public utilities and public utilities easements to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Division of the Public Works Department.
4 Prior to the finalization and recordation of the Master Final Tract Map, Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to run with the land shall be approved by the
City of Anaheim, satisfactory to the Planning Director, Public Works Director and
the City Attorney to address the maintenance responsibilities of the property owner
for the project's parks (Public Park and Public Linear Park) and street parkway
landscaping as shown on the Master Site Plan. Subsequent amendments shall be
submitted to the City of Anaheim for review and approval.
PRI..OQTOREC:OllDACTIONOEAPPLlC:AJJEE SUBDJVISIO!(MAP . \
5 Prior to the recordation of the applicable subdivision map, as dete1mined by the Fire
Chief in consultation with City staff, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with
the City for the installation of traffic signal preemption equipment for the
surrounding controlled intersections.
PRI.OR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL ·. : ·.
...
6 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Tract Map, the legal owner shall post an
electrical performance bond as determined by Public Utilities per Rule 24 front foot
fees.
Exhibit "C"
Page 1 of25
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
. .•
.. · .
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
•·•·· . ·. . . . ·•· .. ,• . .. .• z .
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
.. ... ; ; .·
·. • . . ·· .
Fire Department
. .. .. '
Public Utilities
Depaiiment,
Electrical
Utilities
NO.
7
8
9
10
11
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior and as a condition precedent to the approval by the City of the Final Map for
Tract No. 17703 and its recordation with the County Recorder, the
Owner/Developer, will be required to execute, in recordable form, and deliver to the
City an unsubordinated Declaration of Covenants in such form as may be acceptable
to the City Engineer and City Attorney (or their duly authorized representatives) to
ensure that the Community Improvements and those Public Improvements that are
not accepted by the City for maintenance to be located within the boundaries of
Tract No. 17703 and Tract No. 16859 will be maintained until such time as a
Master Owners' Association has been formed, a declaration of covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) has been recorded against the lots in Tract No.
17703 and Tract No. 16859 imposing against each owner of a lot in Tract No.
17703 and Tract No. 16859 the obligation to maintain the Community
Improvements and those Public Improvements that are not accepted by the City for
maintenance, and the Master Owners' Association has assumed the responsibility to
maintain the Community Improvements and those Public Improvements that are not
accepted by the City for maintenance. Said Maintenance Covenant shall supersede
and replace that certain "Covenant Regarding Interim Development Requirements
and Maintenance Obligations", dated October 23, 2006 and recorded in the Official
Records of the County of Orange on November 3, 2006 as Instrument No.
20060007 46607.
Prior to approval of the Master Final Tract Map, the legal propetiy owner shall
furnish a Subdivision Agreement to the City of Anaheim, in a form to be approved
by the City Attorney's office, agreeing to complete the public improvements
required as conditions of the map at the legal property owner's expense. Said
agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be
recorded concun-ently with the Master Final Tract Map.
Prior to the approval of the Master Final Tract Map distinctive boundaries for all
lots shall be extended to the street centerline. The City shall obtain right-of-way
easements for public street purposes and does not retain fee ownership.
That prior to the approval of the Master Final Tract Map for condominium projects,
the maps shall be labeled "for condominium purposes".
That prior to the approval of the Master Final Tract Map, the property
owner/developer shall submit for City approval mass grading, street, sewer, storm
drain and landscape (including/street tree) improvement plans for the public
improvements along Gene Autry Way and the project's connector streets to the
Public Works Department, Development Services Division. The street
improvement plans shall be reviewed for City approval prior to the approval of the
Exhibit "C"
Page 2 of25
REVIEW
BY
Division
Public Works
Depatiment,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Depaiiment,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
17
18
19
20
21
22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
amount and form approved by the City Attorney's Office and the
Community Services Department. The City will release any existing
bonds which have been replaced or reduced within 10 days of approval of
the replacement bonds.
( e) Prior to recordation of the Final Master Tract Map:
1. All dedicated park properties shall be free of encumbrances or
easements unless othe1wise acceptable to the Community Services
Department.
2. Before the dedication of any park area is
accepted by the City, a Title Report for that park must be
provided to and approved by the City Attorney's Office.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall show 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 plans submitted for building permits and
implemented prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall indicate that assigned
parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits and evidence in the form
of a letter from the property owner/developer shall be provided to the Planning
Services Division of the Planning and Building Department showing
implementation of this requirement prior to the first final building and zoning
inspection for the parking structure.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, architectural plans shall show all air
conditioning facilities and other roof-and ground-mounted equipment shall be
properly shielded from view with roof plans, elevations, and with line-of-sight
plans. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for
building permits and implemented prior to the first final building and zoning
inspection for each building.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall identify the location of a
mail delivery parking stall and indicate that the stall shall be posted with a sign that
indicates it is a reserved space for mail delivery. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits and said parking space
and sign shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for
each Final Site Plan.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall indicate that above-ground
utility devices are located on private prope11y and outside any required setback
areas adjacent to arterial highways or connector streets. Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for the approved Final Site Plan, the above-ground utility
devices shall be specifically shown on construction plans in locations substantially
in accordance with the approved Final Site Plan.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan including a podium structure, plans
shall indicate that all transformers and switching equipment shall be located within
Exhibit "C"
Page 5 of25
REVIEW
BY
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Depai1ment,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Public Utilities
Department
Public Utilities
Depai1ment,
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
electric equipment rooms located within the podium structure. Said locations shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department prior to the approval
of the Final Site Plan.
That prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall show that 4-foot-high
address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of each building in a contrasting
color to the roof material. Said numbers shall not be visible from view of the street
or adjacent properties. Said information shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Police Department and the Planning Services Division of the Planning and
Building Department. Said numbers shall be provided prior to the first final
building and zoning inspection for each building.
That prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer
shall identify on the Final Site Plan easements for emergency, public utility and
other public purposes for fire access as required for each development area. Prior
to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate the approved easements to the City of Anaheim.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan for each podium building, plans shall
indicate that a minimum horizontal clearance of 18 feet or other clearance as
determined acceptable by the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public W arks
Department shall be provided and maintained on the ground floor parking structure
to allow access for the trash bin retrieval vehicle. A "No Parking Between the
Hours of7 A.M. and 5 P.M." sign shall be posted to allow trash bin retrieval access.
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits
and the building constructed with the approved clearance and the signs posted prior
to the first final building and zoning inspection for each podium building.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall indicate that trash storage
areas and trash chutes shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to
the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Prior to approval of each Final Site Plan for residential buildings with podium or
structured parking, plans shall indicate that a separate 8' x IO' enclosed and secured
bulky item storage area, as shown on the approved Solid Waste Management Plan,
shall be provided and maintained, as required by the Public W arks Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division. Said infmmation shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, an on-site trash truck turnaround area
shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 and maintained to the
satisfaction of the Public W arks Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said
turnaround area shall be specifically shown plans submitted for building pe1mits.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall show any proposed gates
and shall demonstrate that gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent
public street. The location of any proposed gates shall be subject to the review and
Exhibit "C"
Page 6 of25
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Police
Department
Public W arks
Depatiment,
Development
Services
Division
Public W arks
Department /
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public W arks
Department /
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public W arks
Department /
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public W arks
Department /
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public W arks
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
NO.
30
31
32
33
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The approved gate
locations shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits and all
gates shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for the
parking lot/parking structure.
Prior to approval of each Final Site Plan with security gates and vehicle tum-around
lanes, the location of said gates and lanes and how they will function shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and the Fire
Depaiiment.
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan, plans shall demonstrate that at-grade
ducts and overhead pipes shall not encroach in the parking space area or required
vehicle clearance area in parking structures. Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
That prior to the approval of the First Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall
submit engineering studies to size the water mains for ultimate development within
the Master Site Plan to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities
Department for review and approval by the General Manager, Public Utilities
Department, or his authorized designee. The water system may be constructed
incrementally, provided that said incremental phasing is adequate to provide
municipal and fire flow protection for the proposed development phasing and the
water facilities installed under said incremental phasing are sized to provide the
future municipal demands and fire protection for any future phasing/development
that will ultimately be served by those water facilities. The property
owner/developer shall conform with Rule ISA of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules
and Regulations for all parcels which have not yet paid the fee to provide the
secondary distribution system to serve their project. The property owner/developer
shall conform with Rule 15D of the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations,
which requires a Gross Floor Building Area Fee be paid on a gross square foot basis
for new residential, commercial and office developments within the Platinum
Triangle. The property owner/developer shall abandon and remove the existing
previously installed public water facilities and install new public water facilities per
the direction and approval of the General Manager, Public Utilities Department, or
his authorized designee. The cost for said removals and installations, including the
cost of design review, inspection and supervision by the Utility, shall be paid
directly by the prope1iy owner/developer. All public water facilities shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the Water Engineering Division's
standards and specifications. A water improvement (UWM) plan showing said
improvements must be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for review and
approval.
That prior to approval of each Final Site Plan, the property owner/ developer shall
submit plans demonstrating that all backflow equipment shall be located above
ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public
streets and alleys in locations approved by the Water Engineering Division of the
Public Utilities Depatiment or as otherwise approved by the Planning and Building
Department. Any backflow assemblies cun-ently installed in a vault shall be
brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be
Exhibit "C"
Page 7 of25
REVIEW
BY
Division
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Depatiment,
Water
Engineering
Division
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
storm frequencies; an analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing st01m drain
system based upon the ultimate project build-out condition; and address whether
off-site and/ or on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/ retention basins
or surface runoff reduction) will be required to prevent downstream properties from
becoming flooded.
l'IUOR io1ssuANCFJ oF<lRADJNGPEIWJTS
37
38
39
40
That prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for the Master Final Tract Map
and for each Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a Water
Quality Management Plan to the Public Works Department Development Services
Division for review and approval that:
(a) Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP's) such as
minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing
directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge"
areas, and conserving natural areas;
(b) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMP 's as defined in
the Drainage Area Management Plan;
(c) Incorporates Treatment Control BMP's as defined in the DAMP;
( d) Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the
Treatment Control BMP's;
(e) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMP's, and describes the
mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMP's; and
(f) Ensures implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan during on-
going grading operations.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit (except for Development Area A) or as
approved by the City Engineer, existing previously installed public facilities under
Final Tract Map No. 16859 including but not limited to sewer, st01m drain, curb
and gutter, pavement and etc. shall be removed per RCP2014-10542.
The developer shall improve the downstream storm drain as determined by the
approved preliminary drainage report. The plans for all required stonn drain
improvements shall be approved prior issuance of grading permits. All required
storm drain improvements shall be operational prior to final building and zoning
inspections.
Prior to the approval of a mass or rough grading permit, potiions of existing
infrastructure to be replaced shall be demolished. The property owner/developer
shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division of the Planning and
Building Department. Plans submitted for the demolition permit shall include a
demolition recycling plan which has been reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. The demolition recycling plan
shall indicate type of material to be demolished, anticipated tonnage diverted and
anticipated tonnage landfilled. Inert demolition material (dirt, concrete, masonry,
asphalt, etc.) shall be disposed of in an inert reclamation site, or diverted by other
means rather than landfilled.
PRIOR ~O ISSUANCE OF]JUILDINGPERMITS
Exhibit "C"
Page 9 of25
REVIEW
BY
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Streets &
Sanitation
Division/
Public Work
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Development Area A, a Lot Line
Adjustment shall be recorded to merge Lots 1 and 11 of Tract Map No. 16859 and
the abandonment and rededication of Westside Drive shall be submitted to the City
of Anaheim for approval and recorded.
Prior to the approval of each street improvement plan for the connector streets
within the project boundary, the property owner/developer shall submit production
landscape plans for the street parkways designed in conformance with the approved
Landscape Plans of the Master Site Plan exhibits and Section 4 of the Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP).
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit associated with the approved Final
Site Plan for each Development Area, all units shall be assigned street addresses by
the Building Division of the Planning and Building Department. Street names for
any new public or private street (if requested by the property owner/developer or
required by the City) shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans
shall show that visitor parking spaces shall be posted "No Overnight Parking,
Except by Permission of the Management". Said signs shall be installed prior to the
first final building and zoning inspection for the parking structure and/or parking
lot.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans shall
show that satellite or other cable/transmission television wiring ( concealed from
outside the building) shall be provided to each unit and a note shall be added to the
construction drawings stating that individual television service involving the
installation of individual dish receivers/transmitters on the exterior of the building
shall not be allowed. Said wiring shall be installed in conformance with the
approved building plans prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for
each building.
Prior to issuance of the first building pe1mit for each Final Site Plan, the builder
shall provide the Planning Services Division of the Planning and Building
Department with a copy of a written disclaimer that will be distributed to
prospective buyers/lessees indicating that they are purchasing/leasing property that
is within close proximity to Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The City National Grove of
Anaheim and Honda Center and that the nature of these venues includes potentially
audible noise (such as crowd noise, vehicular traffic noise, fireworks, and amplified
sound) during events, and traffic delays during event times. On-going during
sales/lease of dwelling units and commercial units, the property owner/developer
shall provide each buyer/lessee with this written info1mation.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit for each Development Area,
park fees shall be paid subject to Section 13.2.4 and Exhibit "D-4" of the Amended
and Restated Development Agreement.
Exhibit "C"
Page 10 of25
REVIEW
BY
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Depatiment,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Community
Services
Department
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
48
49
so
51
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
That prior to the approval of each improvement plan for the Public Park and Public
Linear Park, as shown on the Master Site Plan, the Community Services Department
and, if deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Services, the Park and
Recreation Commission shall have approval over the following:
(a) Approval of Landscape Architect and
other consultants used to design the park and prepare the construction
documents;
(b) Approval of Master Park Plan,
schematic plans, preliminary plans and final plans, specifications, cost
estimates and other construction documents;
( c) Approval of all project materials and
products used in constructing the Public Park and the Public Linear Park
and the right of inspection by City staff at the property owner/developer's
cost; and
( d) Public Park and Public Linear Park
areas shall have amenities including, but not limited to, water features,
site furnishings, plantings, shade structures and play features consistent
with the approved Landscape Plans for the Public Park and Public Linear
Park; and
(e) The owner/developer shall comply with the Community Services
Department Naming Policy A-033 for the Public Park and the Public
Linear Park.
Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer
shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service
requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans,
elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. New
underground electric utility facilities necessary to accommodate the project are
typically required to be underground in the City of Anaheim. The underground
electrical distribution systems will consist of substructures including vaults, duct
banks, pull boxes, and other facilities necessary to meet the proposed power
requirements of the development. The underground substructures will be installed
by the applicant in accordance with electrical distribution plans and specifications
prepared and approved by the Public Utilities Depaiiment -Electrical Engineering
Division. Electrical facilities and equipment will be installed as required to meet
the electrical demand of the development. In addition, all high voltage electrical
lines, switches, and transformers installed on private property will require an
easement as indicated on the approved plans. It is the developer's responsibility to
coordinate survey activities and construct wet and dty utilities in a manner as to
avoid conflicts, and to meet necessary clearance requirements for the on-site
electrical distribution system required for service establishment.
Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of
Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved
utility service plan.
REVIEW
BY
Public Utilities
Department,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the Public Utilities
City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Department,
Exhibit "C"
Page 11 of25
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
52
53
54
55
56
57
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to occupancy, the legal owner shall install street lights as dete1mined and
planned by Public Utilities.
Prior to the approval of street improvement plans for each street identified within
the Master Site Plan area, or if the electrical improvements are to be located on
private property, prior to the approval of the applicable Final Site Plan or builder
tentative tract or parcel map, whichever occurs first, plans shall provide for the
construction of the electrical facilities required pursuant to Condition No. 32 in the
locations approved by the Public Utilities Department provided that:
(a) If an easement is to be provided on private property, the property
owner/developer shall record an easement on the final map or by separate
document satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the City
Attorney's Office prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for
the Final Site Plan;
(b) The property owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated
with the installation of said facilities; and,
(c) The timing for installation of the facilities shall be set forth in the detailed
phasing plan required by Section 9.3 (Timing, Phasing and Sequence of
Public Improvements and Facilities) of this Amended and Restated
Development Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for each Final Site Plan,
the property shall be served with underground utilities per the Electrical Rates,
Rules, and Regulations, and the City of Anaheim Underground Policy.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate its service requirements and relocation issues with
the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department and the other utility companies
involved.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, or prior to
the delivery of combustible materials for construction of buildings, whichever
occurs first, the property owner/developer shall complete all necessary water
facilities to provide the fire flows required by the Fire Department. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building and prior to
structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required by the
Fire Depatiment and shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications and
Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available fire flow.
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Exhibit "C"
Page 12 of25
Said
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Depatiment,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
Fire Depatiment
Fire Depatiment
NO.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, emergency Fire Department
vehicular access shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Fire
Department Specifications and Requirements. Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the width of all Fire Department
exterior stairwells shall be as determined by the Fire Department in confonnance
with emergency evacuation standards. Said information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan Police
including a parking structure, plans shall show that closed circuit television (CCTV) Department
security cameras shall be installed to monitor the parking structures and the
mailrooms to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. CCTV cameras
shall be strategically located throughout the parking structure, mailroom and lobby,
covering all areas, especially all pedestrian and vehicular access points. Fm1her, 2-
way communication devices shall be placed in the parking structure as required by
the Police Depat1ment. All cameras and communication devices shall be installed
prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each of said Final Site
Plans.
That prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans Police
shall indicate that each individual building and unit shall be clearly marked with its Department
appropriate building number and address. These numbers shall be positioned so
they are easily viewed from vehicular and pedestrian pathways throughout the
complex. Main building numbers shall be a minimum of 12 inches in height. Main
building numbers and address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of
darkness. Said numbers shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning
inspection for each building.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans Police
shall indicate that pedestrian and vehicular access control shall be provided to Depat1ment
prevent unwanted entry and that a digital keypad entry system shall be provided to
facilitate quick response by emergency personnel. Said items shall be installed and
the system's entry code provided to the Anaheim Police Department
Communications Bureau and the Anaheim Fire Department prior to the first final
building and zoning inspection for each building.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans Police
shall indicate that adequate lighting shall be provided on all levels of the parking Department
structures, including circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings 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, prope11y, and vehicles on-site. Said lighting shall be installed prior to the
first final building and zoning inspection for each parking structure.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, plans Police
shall show that common rooms, such as gym facilities, recreation areas, laundry Depm1ment
rooms, conference rooms, etc., shall have transparent doors, view panels installed in
solid doors, or a window installed next to the door for increased visibility into the
Exhibit "C"
Page 13 of25
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
65
66
67
68
69
70
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
room. Said features shall be installed prior to the first final building and zoning
inspection for each recreation area.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each parking structure,
plans shall show that a minimum lighting level of one (1) foot-candle measured at
the parking surface shall be maintained for the parking structure with a maximum to
minimum ratio no greater than 10:1. Said lighting shall be installed prior to the first
final building and zoning inspection for the parking structure.
Prior to issuance of Building permits, the building pads shall be cetiified for
compaction by the soils engineer and for line and grade by the civil engineer. All
pad grade changes shall be submitted to the City as part of a grading permit
application for review and approval. Also, the compaction report needs to
document all required soil fill and reconditioning procedures by the grading
contractor, including compaction testing protocol and maintenance of records.
Areas that are not fully documented and certified by the geotechnical engineer
and inspected by the City up to the final pad elevation may need to be over-
excavated to the satisfaction of the site soils engineer, city Construction Services
staff and Development Services Engineer Public Works.
Parkway landscaping and sidewalk shall be constructed with the parkway irrigation
connected to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A
bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form
approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. A Right of
Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services
Division for all work performed in the right-of-way. The landscape parkway
improvements shall be constructed pursuant to Section 9.3 (Timing, Phasing and
Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities) and Exhibit "H" (Infrastructure
Phasing Plan) of this Amended and Restated Development Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide the Public Works Department, Streets and
Sanitation Division with a final demolition recycling report signed by the property
owner/developer indicating actual tonnage of waste diverted and landfilled.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, plans shall be
submitted providing a separate Knox box for the trash truck at each applicable gate
entrance. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building pennits.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Final Site Plan, the
proposed development shall submit a final written Solid Waste Management Plan
signed by the property owner to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public
Works Department for review and approval. The property owner/developer shall
then operate in accordance with the approved written Solid Waste Management
Plan, as it may be modified from time to time subject to written approval by the
Director of Public Works. Said Solid Waste Management Plan shall be referred to
in the project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be
recorded for the property pursuant to Condition No. 9.
Exhibit "C"
Page 14 of25
REVIEW
BY
Police
Department
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Works
Department /
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public Works
Department/
Streets &
Sanitation
Division
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
71
72
73
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to City acceptance of the public right-of-way improvements for all collector
streets identified on the Master Site Plan and Gene Autry Way, said streets shall be
posted with "No Stopping Any Time" signs except where designated turn-out areas
are provided for loading and unloading and designated on-street parking areas.
Such signs shall be shown on street improvement plans submitted by the property
owner/developer for the review and approval by the Public Works Department and
the location of such signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for all
costs associated with the installation of such signs.
Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for Development Areas
A, B, C, or H, whichever is first, the prope1iy owner/developer shall design and
submit to the City of Anaheim for review and approval the traffic signal
modification for the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Market Street and
Katella A venue. Construction of the traffic signal modification at the intersection
of Market Street and Katella A venue shall be completed prior to certificate of
occupancy for the first residential dwelling unit of Development Areas A, B, C, or
H, whichever comes first. Modifications to the timeframe to complete the above-
noted improvements may be approved by the City as set forth in the detailed
phasing plan required by Section 9.3 (Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public
Improvements and Facilities) of this Amended and Restated Development
Agreement provided said modifications do not result in any environmental impacts.
Bonds for these improvements shall be posted in accordance with timing set forth in
said detailed phasing plan.
Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for Development Areas
D, E, F, or G, whichever is first, the property owner/developer shall design and
submit to the City of Anaheim for review and approval the following improvements
per the Project Design Features listed in the Project's Traffic Impact Study, dated
June 18, 2015 on file in the Planning and Building Department:
(a) The extension of the existing raised median on Gene Autry Way easterly to
Union Street;
(b) An eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Union Street/Gene
Autry Way at a minimum of 150 feet plus transition and;
(c) New traffic signal at the Union Street intersection with Gene Autry Way;
Construction of items (a), (b) and (c) shall be completed prior to ce1iificate of
occupancy for the first residential dwelling unit of Development Areas D, E, F and
G, whichever comes first. Modifications to the timeframe to complete the above-
noted improvements may be approved by the City as set forth in the detailed
phasing plan required by Section 9.3 (Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public
Improvements and Facilities) of this Amended and Restated Development
Agreement provided said modifications do not result in any environmental impacts.
Bonds for these improvements shall be posted in accordance with timing set f01ih in
said detailed phasing plan.
Exhibit "C"
Page 15 of25
REVIEW
BY
Public Works
Depaiiment,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
Division
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
74
75
76
77
78
79
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to applying for the first water meter or fire service or first submittal of the
Water Improvement Plans, the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement
plans for Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division review and
approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the
project.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Development Area, a
private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic
water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each Development Area, all
backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area
in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow
assemblies cmTently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current
standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division outside
of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by
Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all requests for new water services,
backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall
be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all existing water services and fire
services shall conform to current Water Services Standard Specifications. Any
water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded
if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer
needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to
abandon any water service or fire line.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, the
owner/developer shall iITevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an
easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants,
including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter
pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service
laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements
shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities
Department's standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include
language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface
improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored
concrete, blicks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or
landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of
City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance
of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of
the Owner and included and recorded in the CC&Rs for the Development Area.
Such information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Exhibit "C"
Page 16 of25
REVIEW
BY
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Depa1iment,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
80
81
82
83
84
85
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to the first submittal of Water Improvement Plans, the developer/owner shall
submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network
analysis, for Public Utilities Water Engineering Division review and approval. The
master plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to
meet the project's water demands and fire protection requirements.
Prior to applying for the first water meter or fire service or first submittal of the
Water Improvement Plans, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities
Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This infonnation
will be used to dete1mine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the
estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to
serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. l 5A.6 of the Water
Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
That prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, Platinum
Triangle water facilities fee and/or advances to the Water Engineering Division
shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15D of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and
Regulations.
Prior to applying for the first water meter or fire service or first submittal of the
Water Improvement Plans, water improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division for approval and a
perfo1mance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved
by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Further, water
improvement bonds for the abandonment and removal of the previously install
public water mains (UWM2014-00010) shall include bonds for the additional
abandonments of existing public water facilities within Westside Dr. and Union
street at the mains within Katella Ave and Gene Autry Way or at the last service on
Westside Dr. and Union Street. If the developer/owner does not install the new
Phase 1 water improvements (per the Infrastructure Phasing Plan and Water
Improvement Plans (UWM plans) to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering
Division within a time frame of one year from the abandonment of the previously
install public water facilities for Tract No. 16859, the City may at its discretion,
abandon the remaining existing public water facilities within Westside Dr. and
Union St. at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way. The
developer/owner will be responsible for all required water improvements for future
development of the site.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each building, individual water
service and/or fire line connections will be required for each parcel or residential,
commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim's Water Rates,
Rules and Regulations.
Prior to the issuance of the first building pe1mit for each building, the
owner/developer shall contact the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering
Division for recycled water system requirements and specific water conservation
measures to be incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans.
Exhibit "C"
Page 17 of25
REVIEW
BY
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
building and updated prior to the issuance of any building permits for each
subsequent permitted building. All studies shall be subject to the approval of the
City Engineer. The property owner/developer shall construct improvements
identified in such studies. The systems may be constructed incrementally subject to
the approval of the City Engineer provided that said incremental phasing is
adequate to provide capacity for the proposed development phasing and providing
that the timing is in accordance with the detailed phasing plan required by Section
9.3 (Timing, Phasing and Sequence of Public Improvements and Facilities) of this
Amended and Restated Development Agreement.
.. ' ',, ' ,, .· ONGOINBDURINGPROJECT CONSTRUCTION .. .. · ..
100 During construction of the Public Park and the Public Linear Park, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible for all utility connections, fees, permits and
charges, all consultant, project inspection and staff time costs for project plan and
construction review and any incidental costs relating to the park improvement, as
approved by the Community Services Department.
101 An all-weather access road as approved by the Fire Department shall be provided
during construction.
Ol'{GOFIVGJJU~GPROJECTQ.PERATION
.· ·•.····.·. . . ; • . ..
102 That ongoing during operation of any restaurant, and at all times when the premises
is open for business, the premises shall be maintained as a bona fide public eating
place, as defined by Section 23038 of the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods
normally offered in such restaurant.
103 That ongoing during operation of each restaurant, there shall be no live
entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time
unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim.
104 That ongoing during business operations of each commercial establishment, all
activities occun-ing in conjunction with the operation of said establishment shall not
cause noise disturbance to sun-ounding uses.
105 Ongoing during business operations, the property owner shall be responsible for
restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any
right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited
to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape
or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement
of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special
surface improvements shall be included in the recorded CC&Rs for the
Development Area and the City easement deeds.
RRIORTO l!IN~ BUII,,DINGAND ZON]NG FIVSPE(;TIONS
..
·.
106
107
Prior to the park construction being deemed complete by the Community Services
Department, the Public Park and Public Linear Park shall be developed in
accordance with Community Services Depmiment standards and will be subject to
Community Services Department approval.
Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for Development Areas B, C,
Exhibit "C"
Page 21 of25
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
Division
. ..
Community
Services
Department
Fire Department
. · .
·. .
Police
Department
Police
Department
Police
Department
Public Works
Department I
Development
Services
Division
· ..
Community
Services
Depatiment
Community
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F or G (including non-residential), as shown on the Master Site Plan, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible for the completion of the Public Park to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Services.
108 Prior to the last final building and zoning inspection for Development Area G or H,
whichever is later, as shown on the Master Site Plan, the property owner/developer
shall be responsible for the completion of the Public Linear Park to the satisfaction
of the Director of Community Services.
109 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each Final Site Plan, all
electrical facilities that are located on the project boundary shall be relocated
underground and all existing services that are fed from the overhead system shall be
converted to underground at the expense of the property owner/developer. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
c, , , ", , 'c , .' , "', , t , , , \ '>', C" '' , " · .. .
PRIOR TOISS[JAN<J.EOF F.INAL JJJJILDJNG ANJ) ZONJN<H'.lfKMIT i. . ·
110
G:JI/vfiRAL
111
112
Prior to certificate of occupancy of the first residential dwelling unit, the existing
previously installed public water facilities under Tract No. 16859 shall be
abandoned and removed per UWM2014-00010. All abandoned water meters shall
be turned over to the City's Water Inspector for final read prior to being salvaged to
the City yard. If the developer/owner wishes to abandon the public water facilities
that were previously installed under Tract 16859 prior to the installation of the
Phase 1 water improvements, the developer/owner shall as part of the public
improvements bonds for the water abandonments of UWM2014-00010, include
bonds for the additional abandonments of existing public water facilities within
Westside Dr. and Union street at the mains within Katella Ave and Gene Autry Way
or at the last service on Westside Dr. and Union Street. If the developer/owner does
not install the new Phase 1 water improvements (per the Infrastructure Phasing Plan
and Water Improvement Plans (UWM plans) to the satisfaction of the Water
Engineering Division within a time frame of one year from the abandonment of the
previously installed public water facilities for Tract No. 16859, the City may at its
discretion, abandon the remaining existing public water facilities within Westside
Dr. and Union St. at the intersection ofKatella Avenue and Gene Autry Way. The
developer/owner will be responsible for all required water improvements for future
development of the site. . .·•· . .·· . · ... . . ·• . . •• .
On an annual basis and as part of the Development Agreement Annual Review, the
property owner/developer shall provide an updated Development Summary Table
(Exhibit "I" of Development Agreement) to the Planning Services Division of the
Planning and Building Department until project build out.
The prope1iy owner developer shall be responsible for compliance with and any
direct costs associated with the monitoring and repo1iing of all mitigation measures
set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) No. 321, established by
the City of Anaheim as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code
to ensure implementation of those
time-frames identified in the measure.
identified mitigation measures within the
MMP No. 321 is made a part of these
Exhibit "C"
Page 22 of25
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
Services
Department
Community
Services
Department
Public Utilities
Depaiiment,
Electrical
Engineering
Division
:•• •• ·< \ . ··· · ..... . . ...
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
:
. · ...•. . ...
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Depaiiment,
Planning
Services
Division
NO.
113
114
115
116
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
conditions of approval by reference.
During ongoing business operations, the property owner/developer shall not charge
for "event parking" for Honda Center, The City National Grove of Anaheim or
Angel Stadium of Anaheim unless approved by the City.
That modifications to the configuration and size of Development Area boundaries
may be approved by the Planning Director provided the overall density in the
Development Area does not decrease or increase from the minimum and maximum
target residential dwelling units and target residential density ranges shown on the
Development Summary Table (Exhibit "I" of the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement), is consistent with the Overall Project Development
Allocation shown on the Development Summary Table and the street system and
alignment shown on the Master Site Plan. The property owner/developer shall
submit a letter to the Planning Director requesting the boundary and acreage
adjustment along with a revised Exhibit "I", Development Summary Table, of the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement and corresponding Final Site
Plan(s) to be submitted to the City of Anaheim for review and approval. Following
approval of a boundary and acreage adjustment, all subsequent subdivision plans
shall be in accordance with the revised Development Area boundaries.
Signage shall be consistent with Section 18.20.150 (Signs) of the Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone.
Park fee credit will be given for Public Park and Public Linear Park in the amount
set forth in Section 9.1 and Exhibit "D-4" of the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement, provided the parks comply with the following criteria:
(a) Park fee credit shall be granted, subject to the
Community Services Department approval, based upon the provision of a
site(s) acceptable to the Community Services Department that meets a 2%
to 5% gradient (excluding landscape play mounds in the Public Park as
shown on the Park Area Enlargement Plan Sheet L-2 of the Master Site
Plan exhibits), unless approved otherwise by the Community Services
Department, with no easements and other obstructions, except as required
for park development, being considered for credit;
(b) All plans for public park improvements are
subject to approval by the Community Services Department;
(c) Park credit will not be given for portions of the
right-of-way, sidewalks to commercial encumbrance and residential areas,
road easements or any other improvement that will lessen the actual
amount of park space;
(d) Park credit against fees will only be provided for
Exhibit "C"
Page 23 of25
REVIEW
BY
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Community
Services
Department
SIGNED OFF
BY
NO.
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
sites approved by the Community Services Department and only for the
per acre value of the land, as established by the current City Council
approved park in lieu fee ordinance and resolution; and,
(e) No park fee credit shall be granted for any private
park or recreational improvements provided with the A-Town
development(s).
Lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with Knox
devices as required and approved by the Fire Depa1iment.
All facilities in this project fall within the Platinum Triangle and are subject to
Public Safety Impact Fees.
Compliance with AMC 6016, the Anaheim Public Safety Radio System Coverage
Ordinance is required. To request a copy of the ordinance, contact Officer Budds at
(714) 765-3859 or mbudds@anaheim.net. A copy of the ordinance can also be
viewed/download online through the City of Anaheim web site under "City
Records": http://www.anaheim.net/.
In order to facilitate the efficient and rapid access by emergency vehicles and
personnel, all electrically operated gates providing emergency vehicle access to any
residential facility/community development with more than 20 (twenty) residential
units, or when otherwise required by the Chief of Police or his designated
representative, shall include the installation of an electronic access system which
allows for the use of a public safety radio frequency to open the gate.
All mitigation measures from MMP No. 321 apply to this project.
The required public improvements shall be installed pursuant to the Infrastructure
Phasing Plan (Exhibit "H") of the Development Agreement.
A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping inside the
project are required.
The following .. horizontal clearances shall be maintained between mm1mum
proposed water main and other facilities:
• IO-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary
sewer mains and laterals
Exhibit "C"
Page 24 of25
REVIEW SIGNED OFF
BY BY
Fire Depatiment
Police
Department
Police
Department
Police
Department
Planning and
Building
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
EXHIBIT "D"
PLATINUM TRIANGLE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT FEES
EXHIBIT "D-1"
ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FEE
Residential Uses $9.92 per unit
The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and the Underground Conversion Program
envision that the public utilities along Katella Avenue, between the State College Boulevard and
Anaheim Way will need to be undergrounded. The CITY-owned facilities will be
undergrounded using CITY funds, pursuant to the Rule No. 20 of the City of Anaheim Rates,
Rules & Regulations.
Some of the facilities along Katella Avenue are owned by Southern California Edison
(SCE). Moneys available to underground CITY-owned facilities may not be used to
underground SCE facilities. The interim fee will collect the funds necessary to underground the
SCE lines, and thereby significantly improve the appearance of the Platinum Triangle.
The cost to underground the SCE lines is estimated at $187,505. These funds will be
collected by imposing an interim fee on the residential units planned in the Platinum Triangle.
The formula for calculating the fee is the following:
Cost to Underground SCE lines
Number of residential units
The Per-Unit fee is calculated at:
$187,505
18,909 Units
$9.92 per Unit
Per-Unit Fee
EXHIBIT "D-2"
GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING FEE
Residential Uses:
Non-residential Uses:
$24. 00 per unit
$0.03 per sq. ft.
These fees are intended to recover the costs associated with the Platinum Triangle including the
designation of portions of the Platinum Triangle for mixed use and office development by the General
Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, the
Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, Zone Reclassifications, all other
associated documents and amendments thereto, and all associated environmental documentation. The
fees are based upon the following calculations:
Costs
Consultant Contract Costs: $670,623 (includes costs related to DSEIR No. 339)
Planning and Building Department Costs: $456,765 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No.
339)
Public Works Costs: $41,325 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339)
$1,168,713 (to be updated with costs related to DSEIR No. 339)
New Development Allowed in the Platinum Triangle
Non-Residential Uses
14,340,522 square feet office development
4,909,682 square feet commercial development
+ 1,500,000 square feet institutional
20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development
Residential Uses
18,909 residential units
x 800 square feet (estimated average unit size)
15,127,200 total square feet ofresidential development
Total Square Feet
20,750,204 total square feet non-residential development
+ 15,127,200 total square feet ofresidential development
35,877,404 total square feet of residential and non-residential uses
Fees (to be updated with DSEIR Planning and Public Works Costs)
$1,168,713 costs $0.03 per square foot
35,877,404 total square feet
Non Residential Uses: $0.03 per square foot
Residential Uses: $24.00 per unit ($0.03 x 800 square feet)
As an example, if a subdivision were required to dedicate a .5 acre park, credit would be
given against the Land Acquisition value, established above, of $2,940,300 per acre. Accordingly
the OWNER would be entitled to a credit of $1,470,150 for the dedication under that example.
* Memorandum by Keyser-Marsten dated March 3, 2010 by James Rabe of Keyser
Marston, available in the Parks Division office.
** As approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 2011-85, dated June 4, 20011.
*** The square foot figure for required recreational space per dwelling unit in The
Platinum Triangle is lower than the figure used elsewhere in the CITY, as set forth in Section
17.08. The lower figure is recommended because of the type of residential projects anticipated
for The Platinum Triangle. The mixed use type of neighborhoods proposed require smaller
human scale parks within a walking distance of2.5 to 5 minutes of each dwelling unit.
EXIIlBIT "E"
[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
EXIIlBIT "F"
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT
[Behind this sheet.]
■■NORTH
.. AMERICAN
.. TITLE
■■COMPANY
Like Clockwork m
Lennar Homes Of California
25 Enterprise, Suite 310
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Attention: Donna Kelly
Dated as of May 20, 2015 at 7:30 A.M.
Updated 6/3/2015
3090 Bristol Street, Suite 190
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Office Phone: (949)419-9481
Office Fax: (714)667-0338
Email: randydeanteam@nat.com
Your Ref: A-T own Metro
Our Order No.: 928572
Property Address:
In response to t he above referenced application for a Policy of Title Insurance,
North Am e rica n Titl e Company
Hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of
Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss
which may be sustained by reason of any defect, llen or encumbrance not shown or referred t o as an Exception
below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stlpulations of sai d Policy
forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and limitations on covered risks of said Policy or Policies
are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The Policy to be issued may contain an Arbitration Clau se. When the amount
if insurance is less than that set forth in the Arbitration Clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the
option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive re medy of the Parties. Limitations on covered risks
applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Pol icies of Title Insurance which establish a deductible amount
and a maximum dollar limit of liability for ce rtain coverag es are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the Policy
forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Pl ease read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth
in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with
notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be
carefully considere d .
It is important to note that this preliminary re port is not a written re presentation as to the
condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the
issuance of a policy of t itle insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed
prior to the issuance of a policy of title i nsu ra nce, a Bin der or Co mmitment should be requested.
The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is :
ALTA Standard Owner Policy
Randy Dean, Title Officer
Page 1
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
SCHEDULE A
1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
A Fee.
2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
PT METRO, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company
3. The Land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of Orange, and is
described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Page 3
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
Lots 1 through 14 inclusive A and Bin Tract 16859, in the City of Anahem, County of Orange,
State of California, as per map filed in Book 892 Pages 1 through 10 inclusive of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county.
Page 4
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in the policy form
designated on the face page of this report would be as follows:
1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2015-2016, a lien not yet due or
payable.
2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $63,254.46, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $63,254.46, OPEN
Penalty: $6,348.45
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-01
Affects Lot 1.
3. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $521 575.59, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $52,575.59, OPEN
Penalty: $5,280.56
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-02
Affects Lot 2.
4. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $49,932.25, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $49,932.25, OPEN
Penalty: $4,916.23
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-03
Affects Lot 3.
5. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $21,863.78, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $21,863.78, OPEN
Penalty: $2,209.38
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-04
Affects Lot 4.
Page 5
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
6. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $20,640.75, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $20,640.75, OPEN
Penalty: $2,087.08
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-05
Affects Lot 5.
7. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $20,563.28, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $20,563.28, OPEN
Penalty: $2,079.33
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-06
Affects Lot 6.
8. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $42,911.68, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $42,911.68, OPEN
Penalty: $4,314.17
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-07
Affects Lot 7.
9. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $33,477.57, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $33,477.57, OPEN
Penalty: $3,370.76
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-08
Affects Lot 8.
10. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $47,098.12, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $47,098.12, OPEN
Penalty: $4,732.81
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-09
Affects Lot 9.
Page 6
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
11. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $78,796.48, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $78,796.48, OPEN
Penalty: $7,902.65
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-10
Affects Lot 10.
12. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $59,384.99, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $59,384.99, OPEN
Penalty: $5,961.50
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-11
Affects Lot 11.
13. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $24,821.35, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $24,821.35, OPEN
Penalty: $2,505.14
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-12
Affects Lot 12.
14. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $11,701.98, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $11,701.98, OPEN
Penalty: $1,193.20
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-13
Affects Lot 13.
15. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $36,152.18, PAID
Penalty: $0.00
Second Installment: $36,152.18, OPEN
Penalty: $3,638.22
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-14
Affects Lot 14.
Page 7
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
16. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $No taxes due,
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $No taxes due,
Penalty: $
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-15
Affects Lot B.
17. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2014-2015.
First Installment: $No taxes due,
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $No taxes due,
Penalty: $
Tax Rate Area: 01007
A. P. No.: 232-121-16
Affects Lot A.
18. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with
Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
19. The lien of special tax assessed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 commencing with Section 53311 of the
California Government Code for City of Anaheim Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Platinum
Triangle), as disclosed by Notice of Special Tax Lien recorded August 12, 2008 as Instrument No.
2008000383751 of Official Records.
20. The lien of special tax assessed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 commencing with Section 53311 of the
California Government Code for Community Facilities District No. R2, as disclosed on The Annual
Tax Bill.
21. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the public records.
22. An easement for public utilites and incidental purposes, recorded April 26, 1978 as Instrument
No. 33904 in Book 12649 Page 1849 of Official Records.
In Favor of: The City of Anaheim
Affects: That portion of Lot 4 as shown on said map
23. An easement for public utility overhang and incidental purposes, recorded February 14, 1958 as
Book 4197 Page 380 of Official Records.
In Favor of: The City of Anaheim
Affects: Those portions of Lots 4, 7 and 8 as shown on said map
24. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Encrocahment License Agreement
(ENC2003-00036), executed by and between City of Anaheim, a chartered city and municipal
corporation and Katella, LLC, a California Corporation, recorded March 26, 2003, in book No. as
Instrument No. 2003000328358 of Official Records.
25. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant and Agreement, executed
by and between Platinum Triangle Partners, LLC, a california Limited Liability Company and City
Page 8
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
of Anaheim, recorded September 28, 2006, in book No. as Instrument No. 2006000648032 of
Official Records.
Which, among other things, provides for:
Owner hereby agrees not to contest the formation of any assessment district, including an
assessment district that contains portions of the subject property, which may be formed to
finance infrastructure and/or maintenance for the Plantinum Triangle.
26. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Development Agreement No. 2005-
00008, executed by and between City of Anaheim; Lennar Plantinum Triangle, LLC and Don H.
Watson, trustee of the Don H. Watson Family Trust; Julius Realty Corporation; Traffic Control
Services, Inc.; Joselito D. Ong and Renee D. Ong; Roger C. Treichler nd Vicki Treichler, as co-
trustees of the Treichler Family Trust; Robert Stovall Family Partnership, LP.; and Jennifer
Leonard and Linda Gaffney, as tenants in common, recorded December 13, 2005, in book No. as
Instrument No. 2005000992876 of Official Records.
Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded February 23, 2009 as Instrument No.
2009-81175 of Official Records.
The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Collateral Assignment of
Development Agreement" recorded February 28, 2012 as Instrument No. 2012-108954 of Official
Records.
27. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Interim
Development Requirements and Maintenance Obligations, executed by and between Lennar
Platinum Triangle, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and City of Anaheim, recorded
November 2, 2006, in book No. as Instrument No. 2006000746607 of Official Records.
28. An easement affecting the portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein, and incidental
purposes, shown or dedicated by the map of:
Subdivision: Tract No. 16859
Book: 892
Page: 1-10
In favor of: The City of Anaheim
For: Sewer, public utilities, other public purposes including ingress, egress and rights for
maintenance purposes
Affects: That portion of Lot 7 as shown on said map
For: Public Parks, emergency ingress, egress and maintenance purposes
Affects: Lots A and B
29. Provisions, herein recited, of the dedication statement on the map of the subdivison shown
below:
Subdivision: Tract No. 16859
Book: 892
Page: 1-10
Provisions: Denotes an easement for private ingress and egress purposes reserved hereon for
future grant.
Page 9
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
30. A Deed of Trust to secure an original indebtedness of $25,000,000.00 recorded February 28,
2012 as Instrument No. 2012000108953 of Official Records.
Dated:
Trustor:
Trustee:
Beneficiary:
February 27, 2012
PT MITRO, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company
North America Title Company
Comerica Bank
A document recorded February 27, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-106062 of Official Records
provides that the deed of trust or the obligation secured thereby has been modified.
31. The effect of a document entitled "A Resolution of the City Counsel of the City of Anaheim
Accepting Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Certain Real Property and/or Facilities", recorded
March 14, 2014 as Instrument No. 2014-97105 of Official Records.
********** END OF REPORT **********
Page 10
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
Exhibit A (Revised 11-17-06)
CAUFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY -1990
Exclusions From Coverage
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations)
restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of
any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land
or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances
or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, !!en, or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien
or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from
coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without
knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing
to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the
estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure
of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured
mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the
interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE -SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1 Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records
of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or
which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and
which are not shown by the public records,
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or
title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10/22/03)
ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations
concerning:
a. building
b. zoning
c. Land use
d. improvements on the Land
e. Land division
f. environmental protection
This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public
Records at the Policy Date.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24.
2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does
not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date.
3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless:
a. a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Dale; or
b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking.
4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records;
b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appear in the Public Records at the Policy Date;
c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Polley Date -this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25.
5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.
6. Lack of a right:
a. to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and
b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 18.
Page 16
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6-1-87)
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances
and also laws and regulations concerning:
• land use • improvements on the land
• land division • environmental protection
This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date.
This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks.
2. The right to take the land by condemning ft, unless:
a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records
on the Policy Date
the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking
3. Title Risks:
that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you
that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date -unless they appeared in the public records
that result in no loss to you
that first affect your title after the Policy Date --this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks
4. Failure to pay value for your title.
5. Lack of a right:
to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A
OR
in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land
This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10-17-92)
WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM 1 COVERAGE
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting,
regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any
improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any
parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or
governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting
from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien
or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from
coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without
knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing
to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no lass or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage
over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements
under construction or completed at Date of Policy); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure
of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured
mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials ( or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the
insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of
Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the
insured has advanced or is obligated to advance.
7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of
federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on:
(i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine or equitable subordination; or
(ii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer
results from the failure:
(a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or
(b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.
The above policy forms may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,
the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following General Exceptions:
Page 17
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings,
whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or
which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and
which are not shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title
to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded form the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or
expenses that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or
relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location, of any improvement erected on the land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
Or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This exclusion l(a) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion l(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or
14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value For the Insured Mortgage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing business
laws of the state where the Land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured
Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.
6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the
lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.
7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy
and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under
Covered Risk ll(b).
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,
the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings,
whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or
that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and
complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or
title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
Page 18
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POUCY (10-17-92)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting,
regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any
improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any
parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or
governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting
from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien
or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from
coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Data of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without
knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing
to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
( c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this
policy.
4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of
federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on:
(i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential
transfer results from the failure:
(a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or
(b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.
The above policy forms may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,
the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage Policy will also include the following General Instructions:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property
or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of
such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which
may be asserted by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are
not shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to
water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or
expenses that arise by reason of:
1 (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or
relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion l(a) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion l(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
( c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10);
or
( e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the
Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.
5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy
and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from
Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
Page 19
Order No.: 92002-928572-09
EXHIBIT "H"
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING
[Behind this sheet.]