Loading...
PC 2010/07/19H:\TOOLS\PC Admin\PC Agendas\(071910).doc City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Stephen Faessel • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Peter Agarwal • Commissioners: Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Harry Persaud Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour • Call To Order - 3:30 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment • ARTIC EIR Workshop 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 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, July 15, 2010, 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 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 07/19/10 Page 2 of 6 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 3:30 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 public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Minutes ITEM 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2010. These minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Motion Continued from the June 21 and July 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. ITEM 1B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of June 7, 2010. These minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Motion Continued from the July 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. 07/19/10 Page 3 of 6 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05499 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04822 (DEV2010-00062) Owner: Shimran Brandano P.O. Box 2491 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Applicant: Melissa Alexie Le 2620 W. Orange Avenue, Suite 2 Anaheim, CA 92804 Location: 2620 West Orange Avenue, Suite 2 The applicant proposes to establish a massage therapy and skin care facility with less parking than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05503 (DEV2010-00076) Owner: Richter Farms Trust c/o Interpacific Asset Management 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 Applicant: Mariscos Licenciado Hector Manuel Lopez 1052 N. State College Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1052 North State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant (Mariscos Licenciado). Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 07/19/10 Page 4 of 6 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05121B (DEV2010-00039) Owner: Living Stream, Inc. 2431 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Phillip Schwartze The PRS Group 3187 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Location: 2411 West La Palma Avenue The applicant requests to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to allow a private nursing and health care vocational college. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Request for Continuance to August 2, 2010 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2010-00001 (DEV2009-00083) Owner: PA Poon & Son Inc. 16841 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2913 Applicant: REP International- Andres Cibotti 7380 Sand Lake Road, Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32819 Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard The applicant proposes to convert a former Toys ‘R Us retail building into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater, including the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. The project includes modifications to the existing parking lot, building interior and the building façade, including the application of wall murals. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 07/19/10 Page 5 of 6 Adjourn to Monday, August 2, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. July 14, 2010_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 07/19/10 Page 6 of 6 S C H E D U L E 2010 August 2 August 16 August 30 September 13 September 27 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 6 December 20 C-G DEV 2010-00062 OFFICES T RELIGIOUS USE RS-2 SFR RM-3 SFR RS-2 SFR T MATIE LOU MAXWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RS-2 SFR T MAGNOLIA ACRES APARTMENTS 40 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G SERVICE STATION T SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-3 ATRIUM GARDEN APARTMENTS 51 DU T RELIGIOUS USE RM-3 STANFORD APARTMENTS 14 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR ||114'||205'S MAGNOLIA AVEW O RA NGE AVE W WESTHAVEN DR S KENMORE STW R UNYON PL W ORANGE AVE S SYLVAN STS VERONA STW KEYS LN S ARON STW ROVEN AVE S SYLVAN STS KENMORE STS VERONA STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. DALE AVEW. ORANGE AVE S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STS. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 109802620 West Orange Avenue, Suite 2 DEV2010-00062 Subject Property APN: 126-191-22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 S MAGNOLIA AVEW O RA NGE AVE W WESTHAVEN DR S KENMORE STW R UNYON PL W ORANGE AVE S SYLVAN STS VERONA STW KEYS LN S ARON STW ROVEN AVE S SYLVAN STS KENMORE STS VERONA STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. DALE AVEW. ORANGE AVE S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STS. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 109802620 West Orange Avenue, Suite 2 DEV2010-00062 Subject Property APN: 126-191-22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05499 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04822 (DEV2010-00062) (2620 WEST ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 2) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05499, to permit a massage and skin care facility pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a 2-story office building, located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 19 , 2010, at 3:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed massage and skin care facility is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010 (Personal Services – Restricted). 2. The proposed massage and skin care facility will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the facility will be compatible with other commercial uses within the complex; 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the massage and skin care facility 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. The traffic generated by the proposed massage and skin care facility will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. - 2 - PC2010-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. 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 for a variance, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The applicant requests a variance from the following Code Section to provide less parking than required by Code: (a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (Table 42-A) (34 spaces required; 31 spaces proposed) 2. The above-mentioned variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the proposal under the normal and reasonably foreseeable operation of the use. The parking justification letter submitted by the applicant indicates that massage services will be provided by appointment only and customer visitation will be evenly dispersed throughout the daytime and nighttime hours. Moreover, several site inspections were conducted at different times of the day, and it was determined that a majority of the parking spaces were unoccupied and an adequate amount of parking was available for customers and employees for the entire complex at all times. 3. The parking variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity because the proposed parking would be adequate to accommodate the project’s peak parking demands. 4. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use since all parking is contained on-site and will not encroach into other surrounding properties. 5. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas provided for the proposed use as indicated in the parking justification letter because the supply of parking spaces is adequate for the proposed uses and there is adequate egress and ingress to the site. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05499 to permit a massage and skin care facility on property located at 2620 West Orange Avenue, Suite 2, and Variance No. 2010-0482 to permit fewer parking spaces than required by code. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on July 19, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19st day of July, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05499 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04822 (DEV2010-00062) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 No required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Code Enforcement 2 A Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, shall be completed and returned to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. Police 3 An Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, shall be filed with the Police Department. Police 4 An employee that is CPR and First Aide trained shall be on premises at all times. Police, Code Enforcement 5 This business (including the conduct of all its employees) shall operate in full compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments. Police, Code Enforcement 6 All records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for one (1) year and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized City official during regular business hours. Police, Code Enforcement 7 The business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized City of Anaheim personnel in order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code Requirements. Police, Code Enforcement 8 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within two business days from the time of discovery. Code Enforcement 9 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00076 RETAIL T FOURPLEX RM-4 APTS 5 DU T SFR C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE RM-4 SUMMERHILL VILLAGE APTS 92 DU RM-4 FOURPLEX T PRE-SCHOOL DAYCARE RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RS-2 SFR RM-4 TRIPLEX RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-4 FOURPLEX RS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL C-G RETAILC-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR C-G RESTAURANT RM-4 RESTAURANT RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX C-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN WHITTIER STN ADAIR PLN CURTIS CTE REDWOOD DR N. E BANYAN LN E BANYAN DR E NORTH REDWOOD DR 91 57 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVEN. EAST STN. ACACIA STE. M IR A L O M A A V E N . P LACENTIA AVEE . B R O A D W A Y N. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST109811052 North State College Boulevard DEV2010-00076 Subject Property APN: 268-231-16 268-231-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN WHITTIER STN ADAIR PLN CURTIS CTE REDWOOD DR N. E BANYAN LN E BANYAN DR E NORTH REDWOOD DR 91 57 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVEN. EAST STN. ACACIA STE. M IR A L O M A A V E N . P LACENTIA AVEE . B R O A D W A Y N. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST109811052 North State College Boulevard DEV2010-00076 Subject Property APN: 268-231-16 268-231-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05503 (DEV2010-00076) (1052 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05503, to sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant in an existing commercial center proposed for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with commercial building located in the Commercial General (CG) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 19, at 3:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said 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 for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040.0402 (Conditionally Permitted Uses) of the Zoning Code. 2. The request to permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the property is currently developed with a commercial shopping center and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and - 2 - PC2010-*** general welfare of the public because the property is currently improved with a commercial center with no proposed expansion. 4. The traffic generated by permitting the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site are consistent with existing restaurant and permitted businesses within the commercial center. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 ((Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05503 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Zoning Provisions - General” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on July 19, 2010, 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 July, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05503 (DEV2010-00076) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police 2 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police 3 The sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption shall be prohibited. Police 4 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police 5 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police 6 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 7 The parking lot shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Code Enforcement 8 All doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. Fire 9 There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police 10 There shall be no coin-operated telephones on the property located outside the building and within the control of the property owner/applicant. Code Enforcement 11 The restaurant shall operate no later than 12:00 a.m. each day of the week. Police 12 Subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked as Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan). Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. I DEV 2010-00039 RELIGIOUS USE RS-2 VACANT I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I RELIGIOUS USE I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFRRS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFRRS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-3 (BCC) SFR||780''||830'W LA PALMA AVE N GILBERT STN AETNA STW R H O D ES A V E N D E V O N S HIR E R D N ELECTRIC WAYW WOODLAND DRN GILBERT STW CARAMIA ST 5 W. CRESCENT AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N. MAGNOLIA AVEN. DALE AVE109522411 West La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00039 Subject Property APN: 071-061-27 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 5 F R E E W A Y W LA PALMA AVE N GILBERT STN AETNA STW R H O D ES A V E N D E V O N S HIR E R D N ELECTRIC WAYW WOODLAND DRN GILBERT STW CARAMIA ST 5 W. CRESCENT AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N. MAGNOLIA AVEN. DALE AVE109522411 West La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00039 Subject Property APN: 071-061-27 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 5 F R E E W A Y July 8, 2010 Subject: WCU University La Palma – Continuance Request Ms. Norwood: Please continue our item until the Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 2010 while we complete our traffic/parking study. PHILLIP SCHWARTZE Agent ATTACHMENT NO. 2 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. SP 92-2 (MU) DEV 2009-00083 VACANT BLDG. SP 92-2 DA1 MEDICAL OFFICE SP 92-2 DA1 AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE CONDOMINIUMS SP 92-2 DA1 VACANT RESTAURANT RS-2 SFRRM-4 HARBOR CLIFF APARTMENTS 130 UNITS SP 92-2 DA1 COMFORT INN MAINGATE SP 92-2 DA1 RENT FOR LESS RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS 106 DU RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU SP 92-2 DA1 HACIENDA INN & SUITES SP 92-2 DA1 RETAIL C-G FOURPLEX RS-2 SFR SP 92-2 DA1 QUALITY INN MAINGATESP 92-2 DA1 JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT SP 92-2 DA1 OFFICES RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU RM-2 SMOKETREE TOWNHOMES 123 DU SP 92-2 DA1 RETAIL SP 92-2 DA1 RETAIL RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU||382'||259'S HARBOR BLVDW WI LKE N WAY W YUCCA AVE S WILLOWBROOK LNS MADRID STS MALLUL DRS S MI R A C T S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIR S. WEST STS. NINTH STS. HASTER STW. ORANGEWOOD AVE W. CHAPMAN AVE E. CHAPMAN AVES. LEWIS ST109792232 South Harbor Boulevard DEV2009-00083 Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 S HARBOR BLVDW WI LKE N WAY W YUCCA AVE S WILLOWBROOK LNS MADRID STS MALLUL DRS S M I R A C T S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIR S. WEST STS. NINTH STS. HASTER STW. ORANGEWOOD AVE W. CHAPMAN AVE E. CHAPMAN AVES. LEWIS ST109792232 South Harbor Boulevard DEV2009-00083 Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 (DEV2009-00083) (2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486, the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater. The proposal also includes enhanced landscaping and wall murals pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a vacant building, located in the SP92-2 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreation land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 19, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed dinner theater use, mural and bringing the site into greater conformance with the specific plan is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No.18.116.070.040.0402. 2. The proposed dinner theater will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the dinner theater and proposed improvements to the property would bring the site into greater conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, in addition mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that the use will not adversely affect any adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area; 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the dinner theater 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. The traffic generated by the proposed dinner theater use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area as documented in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates. The Traffic - 2 - PC2010-*** Impact Analysis has included mitigation measures which have been incorporated as conditions of approval that would reduce impacts related to the increase in traffic to levels that are less then significant. 5. That the parking study prepared by Kunzman Associates for the dinner theater, determined that peak demand for parking would require 317 spaces and the site provides 360 spaces. In addition, the parking study recommended mitigation measures which included a parking management plan which have been included as conditions of approval that would reduce parking impacts to less than significant levels. 6. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158 (Exhibit “”) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486 to permit a dinner theater with enhanced landscaping and wall murals on property located at 2232 South Harbor Boulevard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on July 19, 2010, 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 July, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 (DEV2009-00083) NOTE: Mitigation Measures (“MM”), from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158 are incorporated into these conditions of approval and are identified by the mitigation measure number below applicable condition numbers. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 (MMI-1) The property owner/developer shall submit plans that detail the lighting systems for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or other light- sensitive uses. The system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, the requirement has been met. Planning 2 (MM XII-1) The property owner/developer shall design the building to reduce noise intrusion to 60 dBA Leq or less at the property line to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. Emergency doors at the building exterior shall be double-insulated to prevent interior–exterior noise transmission. These design features shall be noted on all building plans. Code Enforcement Building (verification of note on plans) 3 (MM XII-4) The property owner/developer shall design a security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and a plan for control of noise affecting nearby residences, as required by City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 4.18, Amusement and Entertainment Premises – Restaurants and Bars. Planning Code Enforcement Traffic and Transportation 4 (MM XVI-2) The property owner/developer shall submit a Parking Management Plan to the Planning department and City Traffic and Transportation manager for review and approval. Traffic and Transportation - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 5 (MMXVI-8) Bus parking spaces shall be clearly indicated on the site plan and located away from any residential or noise-sensitive adjacent land uses. Traffic and Transportation 6 (MMXVI-11) The project site shall provide code-required parking spaces for the handicapped. Each specifically designated area should be clearly painted and signed. Signs shall be posted to clearly direct the appropriate attendees to the designated handicapped parking spaces. Traffic and Transportation 7 (MMXVII-1) The property owner/developer shall pay Anaheim Resort Area water facilities fees in accordance with the Rule 15E of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations ($0.39 per square foot). Water Engineering 8 (MMXVII-3) The property owner/developer shall indicate on plans the installation of a separate irrigation meter for total landscaped areas exceeding 2,500 square feet. Resource Efficiency Planning Building (for verification of inclusion on building plans) 9 (MM XVI-4) Sight distances at the project accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer with respect to City of Anaheim standards. Traffic and Transportation 10 (MMXVI-9) The developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management by providing onsite taxi and shuttle bus loading zones and by joining and financially participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). The project shall provide a bus bay onsite acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for ART buses to transport guests to and from hotels, tourist attractions, and local airports. Traffic and Transportation 11 The property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall include a Planning Resort Services - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY phasing plan for the installation and maintenance of landscaping associated with that building permit and shall be in conformance with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and over-watering is minimized. The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, once a system is available. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed by the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. 12 All air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be shielded from public view as required by the ARSP and the sound buffered to comply with the City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 13 All plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened from view of adjacent public rights- of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials; and further, such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 14 The developer shall join and financially participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Clean Traffic and - 8 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY Fuel Shuttle Program. Transportation PRIOR TO SITE CONSTRUCTION 15 (MM IX-1) The amount of total impervious surface square footage disturbance must be determined by the property owner/developer. In the event that construction activities disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, or that any other criteria requiring the need for a WQMP are met as detailed in Section XII.B. of the current Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030), a WQMP must be prepared. The water quality management plan (WQMP) must identify a program for the implementation of specific structural and nonstructural BMPs to address water quality issues so that predictable runoff is controlled. The WQMP will identify the location and type of structural BMPs that “infiltrate, filter, or treat” either the volume or flow rate of stormwater runoff. A final detailed site plan and WQMP must be approved by the City Engineer. Development Services 16 (MM XII-6) Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emissions. Code Enforcement 17 (MM XII-9) The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of construction contractor to respond in the event of a noise complaint. Code Enforcement 18 (MMXVII-2) All requests for new water service or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT - 9 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 19 (MM XVI-6) The developer shall submit street improvement plans to improve Harbor Boulevard, including planting and irrigation for the public parkway to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. Tree wells shall be constructed with the irrigation connected to the private irrigation system. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a bond to guarantee that the improvements are constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection. [Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.080.060]. Traffic and Transportation 20 (MMXVI-10) The Parking Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and the Traffic and Transportation Manager. The Parking Management Plan shall include the Parking Lot Plan required in section 18.116.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and shall include detailed information on how the valet parking program will operate through a valet and access plan, including the location of the loading zone for valet service. Traffic and Transportation ON-GOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 21 (MM XII-5) Construction activities, deliveries, and haul trucks shall be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or a federal holiday for the duration of the construction period. Code Enforcement 22 (MM XII-7) Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer Code Enforcement 23 (MM XII-8) During construction, the construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas a minimum of 50 feet from adjacent residential land uses. Code Enforcement PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS - 10 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 24 That root and sidewalk barriers shall be provided for trees (with the exception of palm trees) within seven feet of public sidewalks. Planning 25 The property owner/developer shall participate in the assessment district for landscape installation and maintenance established for The Anaheim Resort Planning 26 Plans shall indicate that the building shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. Fire 27 The property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department. Fire 28 (MM XVI-1) Implement the site-specific circulation and access recommendations as shown in Figure 18, Onsite Circulation Recommendations. Traffic and Transportation 29 (MM XVI-3) Harbor Boulevard from the project’s north boundary to Hotel Way shall be constructed at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping, raised median and parkway improvements, if necessary. Development Services 30 (MM XVI-5) Onsite traffic signaling and striping shall be implement in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Traffic and Transportation 31 (MMXVI-17) The City Traffic Engineer shall visit the site once the project is constructed and in full operation and verify that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Traffic and Transportation 32 (MMXVII-4) The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscape and irrigation plans. Planning - 11 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 33 (MMXVII-5) The property owner/developer shall install onsite piping with project mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation when it becomes available from the Orange County Sanitation District. Planning ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION 34 (MM XII-2) The manager of the Battle of the Dance shall ensure that emergency doors located at the rear of the building are kept closed at all times during the operation of the dinner theater. Code Enforcement 35 (MM XII-3) With enforcement by the City of Anaheim, the onsite manager shall monitor shuttle bus idling along Harbor Boulevard to ensure they are compliant with CARB Rule Section 2485, which prohibits commercial motor vehicles from idling their primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. Code Enforcement 36 (MM XVI-7) After building permit issuance, as is the case for any roadway design, the City of Anaheim should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory Traffic and Transportation 37 (MMXVI-12) Traffic-directing personnel shall be used to direct inbound drivers to empty parking segments within a lot and then to empty parking stalls. A traffic director shall be positioned at the entrance driveway. Another traffic director should be located in the empty parking area to direct the driver to an empty stall. As the lot fills to capacity, the directors in the lot shall communicate to the driveway director to start to fill the next area.” Traffic and Transportation Police 38 (MMXVI-13) Traffic-directing personnel shall have brightly colored vests so that they are highly visible for the attendees and for their safety. They should have walkie-talkies to ensure efficient communication. They shall be trained for maximum efficiency and safety. Traffic and Transportation Police 39 (MMXVI-14) Traffic-directing personnel shall be provided to assist drivers leaving the facility. Traffic and Transportation - 12 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY Police 40 (MMXVI-15) Valet parking areas shall be provided onsite and utilized in accordance with the Parking Management Plan. These areas shall be appropriately signed and striped. Pedestrian conflicts shall be minimized as much as possible by directing pedestrians to designated pedestrian crossings. During events, manual control could be necessary in the drop-off areas. Traffic and Transportation Police 41 (MMXVI-16) A follow-up monitoring program shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the parking management plan. Peak periods shall be monitored in order to make changes to the parking management plan to improve operating conditions, if necessary. Traffic and Transportation Police GENERAL 42 That any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning 43 Business to be equipped with alarm system (silent or audible) Police 44 Provide comprehensive security alarm system for the following: • Perimeter building and access route protection. • High valued storage areas. • Interior building door to shipping and receiving area. • Perimeter fence and security gating. Police 45 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police 46 1. Closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras are recommended, with the following coverage areas: Police - 13 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY • Lobby entrances • Building perimeter • Parking lot • Exterior entrance • Interior hallway • 2. Cashier’s area If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be placed at each camera. 3. CCTV monitor and recorders should be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft or, or tampering with, the tape. 4. CCTV recording should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before being recorded over. 5. CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10 items per tape. Use of digital recording equipment as an alternative to videotape is encouraged. 6. On-site, California-licensed security personnel (uniformed recommended). 47 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Number should be illuminated during hours of darkness. Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. Police 48 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from the ground level. Police 49 1. All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Police - 14 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 2. Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised. 3. The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece. 4. Overhead roll-up doors shall also be secured on the inside that the lock cannot be defeated from the outside and shall be secured with a cylinder lock or padlock from the inside. 50 1. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: • Rated burglary resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material or • Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel material, spaced no more than 5” apart under the skylight and securely fastened or • A steel grill of at least 1/8” material under the skylight and securely fastened. 2. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: • If the hatchway is of wooden material, if shall be covered on the outside with at least 16-gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. • Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. 3. A Knox box shall be installed at hatchway to allow Police/Fire access to interior. 4. Exterior roof access ladder should be relocated within the building’s main resident tenant space. Exterior ladders Police - 15 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY allow easy roof access for criminals, etc. 5. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8”x12” on the rooftop of exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: • Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel material, spaced no more than 5” apart and securely fastened or • A steel grill of at least 1/8” material and securely fastened. If the barrier is secured to the outside of the structure, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8” diameter on the outside. 51 No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’x1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Police 52 Security measure shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police 53 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police 54 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.16.100.010 Police - 16 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY Anaheim Municipal Code) 55 The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim (Section 4.16.100.010 AMC) Code Enforcement Police 56 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Code Enforcement 57 Final elevation and sign plans shall be brought back to the Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Planning 58 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan), Exhibit No. 3 (Roof Plan), Exhibit No. 4 (Elevations), Exhibit No. 5 (Elevations), Exhibit No. 6 (Landscape Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2010-00001 (DEV2009-00083) (2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Final Site Plan No. 2010-00001 to permit the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater. The proposal also includes enhanced landscaping and wall murals pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a vacant building, located in the SP92-2 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreation land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 19, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed final site plan and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request for a dinner theater use, mural and bringing the site into greater conformance with the specific plan complies with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2), subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486. 2. The proposed dinner theater and proposed improvement to the property would bring the site into greater conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158 (Exhibit “”) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. - 2 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Final Site Plan No. 2010-00001 to permit a dinner theater with enhanced landscaping and wall murals on property located at 2232 South Harbor Boulevard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on July 19, 2010, 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 July, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2010-00001 (DEV2009-00083) NOTE: Mitigation Measures (“MM”), from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158 are incorporated into these conditions of approval and are identified by the mitigation measure number below applicable condition numbers. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 (MMI-1) The property owner/developer shall submit plans that detail the lighting systems for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or other light- sensitive uses. The system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, the requirement has been met. Planning 2 (MM XII-1) The property owner/developer shall design the building to reduce noise intrusion to 60 dBA Leq or less at the property line to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. Emergency doors at the building exterior shall be double-insulated to prevent interior–exterior noise transmission. These design features shall be noted on all building plans. Code Enforcement Building (verification of note on plans) 3 (MM XII-4) The property owner/developer shall design a security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and a plan for control of noise affecting nearby residences, as required by City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 4.18, Amusement and Entertainment Premises – Restaurants and Bars. Planning Code Enforcement Traffic and Transportation 4 (MM XVI-2) The property owner/developer shall submit a Parking Management Plan to the Planning department and City Traffic and Transportation manager for review and approval. Traffic and Transportation 5 Bus parking spaces shall be clearly indicated on the site plan and located away from any residential Traffic and - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY (MMXVI-8) or noise-sensitive adjacent land uses. Transportation 6 (MMXVI-11) The project site shall provide code-required parking spaces for the handicapped. Each specifically designated area should be clearly painted and signed. Signs shall be posted to clearly direct the appropriate attendees to the designated handicapped parking spaces. Traffic and Transportation 7 (MMXVII-1) The property owner/developer shall pay Anaheim Resort Area water facilities fees in accordance with the Rule 15E of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations ($0.39 per square foot). Water Engineering 8 (MMXVII-3) The property owner/developer shall indicate on plans the installation of a separate irrigation meter for total landscaped areas exceeding 2,500 square feet. Resource Efficiency Planning Building (for verification of inclusion on building plans) 9 (MM XVI-4) Sight distances at the project accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer with respect to City of Anaheim standards. Traffic and Transportation 10 (MMXVI-9) The developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management by providing onsite taxi and shuttle bus loading zones and by joining and financially participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). The project shall provide a bus bay onsite acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for ART buses to transport guests to and from hotels, tourist attractions, and local airports. Traffic and Transportation 11 The property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall include a phasing plan for the installation and maintenance of landscaping associated with that building Planning Resort Services - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY permit and shall be in conformance with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and over-watering is minimized. The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, once a system is available. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed by the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. 12 All air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be shielded from public view as required by the ARSP and the sound buffered to comply with the City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 13 All plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened from view of adjacent public rights- of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials; and further, such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 14 The developer shall join and financially participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Clean Fuel Shuttle Program. Traffic and Transportation - 8 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO SITE CONSTRUCTION 15 (MM IX-1) The amount of total impervious surface square footage disturbance must be determined by the property owner/developer. In the event that construction activities disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, or that any other criteria requiring the need for a WQMP are met as detailed in Section XII.B. of the current Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030), a WQMP must be prepared. The water quality management plan (WQMP) must identify a program for the implementation of specific structural and nonstructural BMPs to address water quality issues so that predictable runoff is controlled. The WQMP will identify the location and type of structural BMPs that “infiltrate, filter, or treat” either the volume or flow rate of stormwater runoff. A final detailed site plan and WQMP must be approved by the City Engineer. Development Services 16 (MM XII-6) Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emissions. Code Enforcement 17 (MM XII-9) The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of construction contractor to respond in the event of a noise complaint. Code Enforcement 18 (MMXVII-2) All requests for new water service or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT 19 (MM XVI-6) The developer shall submit street improvement plans to improve Harbor Boulevard, including Traffic and - 9 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY planting and irrigation for the public parkway to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. Tree wells shall be constructed with the irrigation connected to the private irrigation system. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a bond to guarantee that the improvements are constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection. [Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.080.060]. Transportation 20 (MMXVI-10) The Parking Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and the Traffic and Transportation Manager. The Parking Management Plan shall include the Parking Lot Plan required in section 18.116.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and shall include detailed information on how the valet parking program will operate through a valet and access plan, including the location of the loading zone for valet service. Traffic and Transportation ON-GOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 21 (MM XII-5) Construction activities, deliveries, and haul trucks shall be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or a federal holiday for the duration of the construction period. Code Enforcement 22 (MM XII-7) Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer Code Enforcement 23 (MM XII-8) During construction, the construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas a minimum of 50 feet from adjacent residential land uses. Code Enforcement PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 24 That root and sidewalk barriers shall be provided for trees (with the exception of palm trees) within Planning - 10 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY seven feet of public sidewalks. 25 The property owner/developer shall participate in the assessment district for landscape installation and maintenance established for The Anaheim Resort Planning 26 Plans shall indicate that the building shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. Fire 27 The property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department. Fire 28 (MM XVI-1) Implement the site-specific circulation and access recommendations as shown in Figure 18, Onsite Circulation Recommendations. Traffic and Transportation 29 (MM XVI-3) Harbor Boulevard from the project’s north boundary to Hotel Way shall be constructed at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping, raised median and parkway improvements, if necessary. Development Services 30 (MM XVI-5) Onsite traffic signaling and striping shall be implement in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Traffic and Transportation 31 (MMXVI-17) The City Traffic Engineer shall visit the site once the project is constructed and in full operation and verify that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Traffic and Transportation 32 (MMXVII-4) The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscape and irrigation plans. Planning 33 (MMXVII-5) The property owner/developer shall install onsite piping with project mains so that reclaimed water Planning - 11 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY may be used for landscape irrigation when it becomes available from the Orange County Sanitation District. ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION 34 (MM XII-2) The manager of the Battle of the Dance shall ensure that emergency doors located at the rear of the building are kept closed at all times during the operation of the dinner theater. Code Enforcement 35 (MM XII-3) With enforcement by the City of Anaheim, the onsite manager shall monitor shuttle bus idling along Harbor Boulevard to ensure they are compliant with CARB Rule Section 2485, which prohibits commercial motor vehicles from idling their primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. Code Enforcement 36 (MM XVI-7) After building permit issuance, as is the case for any roadway design, the City of Anaheim should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory Traffic and Transportation 37 (MMXVI-12) Traffic-directing personnel shall be used to direct inbound drivers to empty parking segments within a lot and then to empty parking stalls. A traffic director shall be positioned at the entrance driveway. Another traffic director should be located in the empty parking area to direct the driver to an empty stall. As the lot fills to capacity, the directors in the lot shall communicate to the driveway director to start to fill the next area.” Traffic and Transportation Police 38 (MMXVI-13) Traffic-directing personnel shall have brightly colored vests so that they are highly visible for the attendees and for their safety. They should have walkie-talkies to ensure efficient communication. They shall be trained for maximum efficiency and safety. Traffic and Transportation Police 39 (MMXVI-14) Traffic-directing personnel shall be provided to assist drivers leaving the facility. Traffic and Transportation Police - 12 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 40 (MMXVI-15) Valet parking areas shall be provided onsite and utilized in accordance with the Parking Management Plan. These areas shall be appropriately signed and striped. Pedestrian conflicts shall be minimized as much as possible by directing pedestrians to designated pedestrian crossings. During events, manual control could be necessary in the drop-off areas. Traffic and Transportation Police 41 (MMXVI-16) A follow-up monitoring program shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the parking management plan. Peak periods shall be monitored in order to make changes to the parking management plan to improve operating conditions, if necessary. Traffic and Transportation Police GENERAL 42 That any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning 43 Business to be equipped with alarm system (silent or audible) Police 44 Provide comprehensive security alarm system for the following: • Perimeter building and access route protection. • High valued storage areas. • Interior building door to shipping and receiving area. • Perimeter fence and security gating. Police 45 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police 46 1. Closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras are recommended, with the following coverage areas: • Lobby entrances • Building perimeter Police - 13 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY • Parking lot • Exterior entrance • Interior hallway • 2. Cashier’s area If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be placed at each camera. 3. CCTV monitor and recorders should be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft or, or tampering with, the tape. 4. CCTV recording should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before being recorded over. 5. CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10 items per tape. Use of digital recording equipment as an alternative to videotape is encouraged. 6. On-site, California-licensed security personnel (uniformed recommended). 47 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Number should be illuminated during hours of darkness. Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. Police 48 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from the ground level. Police 49 1. All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. 2. Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in solid doors Police - 14 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY where natural surveillance is compromised. 3. The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece. 4. Overhead roll-up doors shall also be secured on the inside that the lock cannot be defeated from the outside and shall be secured with a cylinder lock or padlock from the inside. 50 1. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: • Rated burglary resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material or • Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel material, spaced no more than 5” apart under the skylight and securely fastened or • A steel grill of at least 1/8” material under the skylight and securely fastened. 2. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: • If the hatchway is of wooden material, if shall be covered on the outside with at least 16-gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. • Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. 3. A Knox box shall be installed at hatchway to allow Police/Fire access to interior. 4. Exterior roof access ladder should be relocated within the building’s main resident tenant space. Exterior ladders allow easy roof access for criminals, etc. Police - 15 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 5. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8”x12” on the rooftop of exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: • Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel material, spaced no more than 5” apart and securely fastened or • A steel grill of at least 1/8” material and securely fastened. If the barrier is secured to the outside of the structure, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8” diameter on the outside. 51 No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’x1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Police 52 Security measure shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police 53 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police 54 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police 55 The permitted event or activity shall not create Code Enforcement - 16 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY sound levels that violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim (Section 4.16.100.010 AMC) Police 56 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Code Enforcement 57 Final elevation and sign plans shall be brought back to the Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Planning 58 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan), Exhibit No. 3 (Roof Plan), Exhibit No. 4 (Elevations), Exhibit No. 5 (Elevations), Exhibit No. 6 (Landscape Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 IINNIITTIIAALL SSTTUUDDYY AANNDD MMIITTIIGGAATTEEDD NNEEGGAATTIIVVEE DDEECCLLAARRAATTIIOONN FFOORR:: BATTLE OF THE DANCE DINNER THEATER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Della Herrick Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services JUNE 2010 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 IINNIITTIIAALL SSTTUUDDYY AANNDD MMIITTIIGGAATTEEDD NNEEGGAATTIIVVEE DDEECCLLAARRAATTIIOONN FFOORR:: BATTLE OF THE DANCE DINNER THEATER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Anaheim Planning Department, Current Planning 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: 714.765.5139 Contact: Della Herrick Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714.966.9220 · Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services COA-52.0E JUNE 2010 Table of Contents Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page i Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 2 1.5 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN ......................................................................... 3 1.6 CITY ACTION REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 3 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ......................................................................................... 21 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 35 3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ................................................................... 36 3.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 37 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 42 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 44 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................................... 45 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 47 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................... 50 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................. 53 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................. 57 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 58 3.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 59 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................... 68 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 69 3.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 70 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................................... 71 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 98 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................ 102 4. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 105 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 105 4.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................... 105 4.3 WEB SITES ..................................................................................................................... 105 5. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................... 107 CITY OF ANAHEIM ....................................................................................................................... 107 THE PLANNING CENTER ............................................................................................................ 107 APPENDICES A. Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendments and Adjustments B. Air Quality Modeling C. Noise Study D. Traffic Impact Analysis E. Water Consumption Table for Medieval Times Table of Contents Page ii · The Planning Center June 2010 List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Local Vicinity ....................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries ......................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Aerial Photograph and Photograph Location Key ............................................................ 11 Figure 5 Site Photographs .............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8 Proposed Floor Plan ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9 Traffic Study Area .............................................................................................................. 73 Figure 10 Existing Friday Average Daily Trips .................................................................................. 75 Figure 11 Existing Saturday Average Daily Trips .............................................................................. 77 Figure 12 Existing Friday Evening Peak Hour Trips ......................................................................... 79 Figure 13 Existing Saturday Evening Peak Hour Trips ..................................................................... 81 Figure 14 Friday PM Peak Hour Trips (With Project) ........................................................................ 85 Figure 15 Saturday PM Peak Hour Trips (With Project) ................................................................... 87 Figure 16 Friday Average Daily Trips (With Project) ......................................................................... 89 Figure 17 Saturday Average Daily Trips (With Project) ..................................................................... 91 Figure 18 Onsite Circulation Recommendations .............................................................................. 95 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions .......................................................................... 38 Table 2 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, Saturday ............................................................ 39 Table 3 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Emissions, Screening Level Analysis..................... 40 Table 4 Maximum Daily Onsite Operational Emissions, Screening Level Analysis ...................... 41 Table 5 Project-Generated GHG Emissions, Operational Phase .................................................. 49 Table 6 Project-Generated GHG Emissions, Operational Phase with Scoping Plan .................... 50 Table 7 Existing Traffic Noise Modeling, 24-Hour ......................................................................... 60 Table 8 Traffic Noise Modeling ...................................................................................................... 62 Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure, Structural Damage Assessment ....................................................................................... 65 Table 10 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences, Vibration Annoyance ......................................................................................................... 65 Table 11 Average Construction Noise Levels .................................................................................. 67 Table 12 Criteria for Significant Traffic Impacts, City of Anaheim ................................................... 71 Table 13 Existing Levels of Service in the Study Area ..................................................................... 72 Table 14 Project-Generated Traffic .................................................................................................. 83 Table 15 Opening Year (2010) with Project Traffic Contribution ..................................................... 84 Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 1 1. Introduction The project applicant, REP International, is proposing building renovations and site modifications on a 4.8-acre site in the City of Anaheim (the City). The proposed project, the Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater project, is analyzed in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine if approval of the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment. This IS/MND has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Public Resources Code 21000-21177, of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) and under the guidance of the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for preparing the IS/MND for the proposed Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater (proposed project). The purpose of this document is to evaluate the development of the proposed project. As appropriate, this document incorporates information that was presented in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (EIR No. 313) and The City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (EIR No. 330). 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project is on a 4.8-acre site on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, south of Wilken Way (2232 South Harbor Boulevard) in the ARSP in the City of Anaheim (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity). Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) via Harbor Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, and Chapman Avenue. The ARSP area is part of the 1,078-acre Anaheim Resort, which encompasses three adopted specific plans: the ARSP, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. These three specific plans are shown in Figure 3, Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial Recreation. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND In September 1994, the City of Anaheim certified the ARSP EIR No. 313 (State Clearinghouse No. 91091062) in support of the adoption of the ARSP No. 92-2 (Anaheim 1994b, 1994a). This EIR evaluated impacts associated with the establishment and implementation of the ARSP and created a mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 0085) in order to mitigate any such impacts. At the time the ARSP was adopted, the Specific Plan area encompassed approximately 549.5 acres. In May 2004, the City of Anaheim certified The Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003041105). The EIR evaluated impacts associated with the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As part of this analysis, EIR No. 330 evaluated impacts related to Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort SP 92-2, which was processed concurrently with the General Plan and Zoning Code update. This amendment expanded the ARSP area to include 26.4 acres along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue and north of Chapman Avenue. The proposed project site is located within this expansion area. 1. Introduction Page 2 · The Planning Center June 2010 Both EIR Nos. 313 and 330, The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR and the General Plan Final EIR respectively, and their associated mitigation monitoring programs, are available for review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department during normal business hours. Since certification of EIR No. 313, proposed modifications to the ARSP have included thirteen amendments and four adjustments. Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of each of these actions. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.3.1 Existing Land Use The 4.8-acre project site is currently developed with a 43,500-square-foot structure that consists of two separate abutted vacant commercial buildings, as shown in Figure 4, Aerial Photograph and Photograph Location Key. The buildings were formerly occupied by a Toys ‘R Us store which closed in 2002. The larger of the two buildings is 30,000 square feet and the smaller of the two is 13,500 square feet. The maximum heights of the buildings, as they currently exist, range from 25 feet to 30 feet. The remainder of the site is paved for parking, with four small landscaping islands on the west portion of the site. A hedgerow and sidewalk separate the site from Harbor Boulevard. Two driveways off Harbor Boulevard provide vehicular access to the project site, one on the south side of the existing building and one on the north side. The existing building, parking lot, landscaping, and driveways are shown in Figure 5, Site Photographs. Circulation Access to the project site is provided off Harbor Boulevard to the west, a major six-lane arterial street, which runs north-to-south west of the project site. Harbor intersects with Wilken Way, a two-lane street to the north of the project site, and with Chapman Avenue, a four-lane street to the south of the project site. The two nearest freeways are I-5, which runs northwest-to-southeast a little over a mile to the northeast of the project site, and SR-22, which runs east-to-west about a mile and a half south of the site. The closest direct access to I-5 is provided via Chapman Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, and Orangewood Avenue. The closest direct access to SR-22 is provided via Harbor Boulevard. 1.3.2 Surrounding Land Use The area surrounding the proposed project site is urbanized and built-up. Most land uses to the north, west, and south are commercial and include hotels, offices, and restaurants. Hotels and restaurants are especially dominant along Harbor Boulevard, where they serve visitors of the Anaheim Convention Center and the Disneyland Resort. The Anaheim Convention Center is a little over half a mile to the north of the project site along Harbor Boulevard. The Disneyland Resort lies beyond that, also on Harbor Boulevard. Low-medium- density residential land uses, consisting of two townhome communities, surround the site on the east and southeast. Photographs of the surrounding land uses are included in Figure 6, Surrounding Land Uses. 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.4.1 Proposed Land Use The proposed project would convert two adjoined, vacant buildings into a 950-seat dinner theater. The dinner theater would provide guests with theater entertainment and dining. One nightly show would be conducted Monday through Friday. Saturdays would have two evening shows, and Sundays would have two matinee shows and one evening show. The hours of daily shows are provided below. All food would be prepared and served onsite. 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 3 Remodeling of Buildings The larger of the two existing structures would be remodeled to house the main entry, ticket area, gift shop, lounge, bar, kitchen, restrooms, back stage and dressing area, and the main offices, as shown in Figure 7, Proposed Site Plan, and Figure 8, Proposed Floor Plan. The smaller of the two structures would be partially demolished and would house the dining and seating area. The roof and walls of the smaller building would be removed, but the existing slab would remain. New tilt-up walls and a truss clear span roof will replace the existing walls and roof. The façade of the two buildings would be changed, and the maximum building height over the stage area would be increased to 45 feet. The remainder of the building would have a maximum height of 35 feet. Parking Lot and Landscaping Improvements The parking lot will be repaved, and changes will be made to provide the required landscaping and setbacks. The perimeter of the parking lot will have a 20-foot landscaping setback along the eastern property line and 10-foot landscaping setbacks along the northern and southern property lines. Landscaping islands will also be added to the parking lot. Approximately 385 parking spaces would be provided, including 15 handicap-accessible spaces, 50 valet spaces, including parking areas, for limousines and charter buses, and 320 guest spaces. No excavation activities would be required for the building remodeling or parking lot and landscaping improvements. All improvements would be made above-ground and the site would not need to be regraded. Dinner Theater Operation The proposed theater would hold shows seven days a week and has a seating capacity of approximately 950. The proposed schedule includes one show at 8:00 PM Monday through Friday, two shows on Saturday at 5:30 PM and 8:00 PM, and three shows on Sunday at 1:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. Approximately 70 employees will be present during each shift, including performers and other staff. 1.4.2 Project Phasing The site modifications and building remodeling of the proposed project would be completed in a single phase in 2010. 1.5 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The existing zoning for the project site is ARSP (categorized as “CR – Commercial Recreation District”) and the General Plan land use designation is Commercial Recreation. 1.6 CITY ACTION REQUESTED The proposed dinner theater with murals is permitted with a conditional use permit and final site plan. Further, the proposed parking lot landscape improvements to a non-conforming site are also permitted by a conditional use permit in the ARSP. This must be approved by the City to ensure compliance with the ARSP zoning (“CR-Commercial Recreation District”). 1. Introduction Page 4 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. NOT TO SCALE 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 Regional Location AnaheimAnaheim Villa Park Villa Park OrangeOrange Garden GroveGarden Grove Fountain Valley Fountain Valley Huntington Beach Huntington Beach WestminsterWestminster IrvineIrvine Santa AnaSanta Ana TustinTustin AnaheimAnaheim La HabraLa Habra La Mirada La Mirada BreaBrea StantonStanton CerritosCerritos CypressCypress Buena Park Buena ParkLa Palma La Palma Seal Beach Seal Beach Chino Hills Chino Hills Yorba LindaYorba Linda PlacentiaPlacentia FullertonFullerton 91 91 57 142 90 5 5 55 SITESITE 405 55 22 261 C o u n t y o f O r a n g eSanta Fe Springs Santa Fe Springs 1. Introduction Page 6 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 2 Local Vicinity Site Boundary City Boundary 0 2,000 Scale (Feet) Garden GroveGarden Grove AnaheimAnaheim 5 22 OrangeOrange Lampson AveLampson Ave Haster StHaster StHarbor BlvdHarbor BlvdWest StWest St9th St9th StChapman AveChapman Ave The Block at Orange The Block at Orange DisneylandDisneyland Katella AveKatella Ave Orangewood AveOrangewood Ave Lewis StLewis St 1. Introduction Page 8 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center •Figure 3 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Boundaries 0 1,800 Scale (Feet)Source: City of Anaheim 2008 Site Boundary Disneyland WILKEN WY Hotel Circle Specific Plan (SP93-1) The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area (Amendment No. 5 to SP92-2) The Anaheim Resort The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (SP92-1) 5 22 1. Introduction Page 10 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 4 Aerial Photograph and Photograph Location Key Site Boundary 0 140 Scale (Feet)Source: Google Earth Pro 2010Harbor BlvdHarbor Blvd4 2 1 3 Location of Photos1 1. Introduction Page 12 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 1. IntroductionSite PhotographsBattle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial StudyThe Planning Center •Figure 5View of site from northwestlooking southeast acrossHarbor Boulevard.View of parking lot andsite from the northeastlooking southwest.Site access on the south,at intersection of Hotel Wayand Harbor Boulevard.Also shows access to adjacentcommercial strip mall tothe south of the project site.Onsite view of the rear parkinglot from the south side ofthe site (looking northeast).Shows the residential landuses east of the project site.4213 1. Introduction Page 14 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 6 Surrounding Land Uses Commercial restaurant land uses to the north of the project site. Auto shop to the northeast of the project site. Commercial and hotel land uses along Harbor Boulevard south of the project site. 1. Introduction Page 16 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Flores Design Group 2009 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 7 0 90 Scale (Feet) Proposed Site Plan 1. Introduction Page 18 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Flores Design Group 2010 1. Introduction Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 8 Proposed Floor Plan 0 30 Scale (Feet) 1. Introduction Page 20 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 21 2. Environmental Checklist CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by applicant) Dear Applicant: The City of Anaheim as Lead Agency is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of your development project. In order to assist us in completing this required environmental review, please provide us with the following information: 1. Project Address or Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 2. Project Description (describe the entire project, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any off-site supporting improvements or features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): The proposed project would convert two adjoined, vacant buildings into a 950-seat dinner theater. The proposed theater would hold shows seven days a week and has a seating capacity of approximately 950. The proposed schedule includes one show at 8:00 PM Mondays through Fridays, two shows on Saturdays at 5:30 PM and 8:00 PM, and three shows on Sundays at 1:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. All food would be prepared and served onsite. The larger of the two existing structures would be remodeled and the smaller of the two structures would be partially demolished. The two buildings would be conjoined and the maximum height would be 45 feet. The parking lot will be repaved and changes will be made to the landscaping and setbacks. The perimeter of the parking lot will have a 20-foot landscaping setback along the eastern property line and 10-foot landscaping setbacks along the northern and southern property lines. Landscaping islands will also be added to the parking lot. Approximately 385 parking spaces would be provided, including 15 handicap-accessible spaces, 50 valet spaces for limousines and charter buses, and 320 guest spaces. 3. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 233-051-8 4. Name of Property Owner: P.A. Poon & Son, Inc. Address: 16841 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 5. Name of Authorized Agent: REP International - Andres Cibotti 2. Environmental Checklist Page 22 · The Planning Center June 2010 Address: 7380 Sand Lake Road, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32819 6. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including if the site is on filled land or on a slope of ten percent or more and provide information on its topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historic or scenic aspects. Provide pictures of the site and describe any existing structures on the site, and their current use. Attach additional sheets if necessary. The 4.8-acre project site is currently developed with a 43,500-square-foot structure which consists of two separate abutted vacant commercial buildings. The larger of the two buildings is 30,000 square feet and the smaller of the two is 13,500 square feet. The maximum heights of the buildings range from 25 feet to 30 feet. The remainder of the site is paved for parking with four small landscaping islands on the west portion of the site. A hedgerow and sidewalk separate the site from Harbor Boulevard. Two driveways off Harbor Boulevard provide vehicular access to the project site, one on the south side of the existing building and one on the north side. 7. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., for permits, financing, participation agreement, etc.). Orange County Health Care Agency 8. Site size: 4.8 acres 9. Demolition proposed: No Yes 10. Square feet of new construction: 43,500 (remodeled) 11. Number of on-site parking spaces provided: 385 13. Tentative development schedule: Start Date: August 2010 Completion Date: December 2010 Phasing: The proposed project would be completed in one phase upon acquisition of the necessary permits. 14. Airport Land Use Plan – Is the project site located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a heliport or helistop facility? No 15. Is the property covered by a previously-certified EIR? Yes No If yes, does the property fit within the parameters, assumptions and time frames analyzed in the EIR? Yes 16. Are there any unique characteristics relating to your development (i.e., excessive noise, air quality emissions, traffic generation, sensitive adjacent uses, shade/shadow impacts on adjacent property, etc.) which might result in significant impacts? Yes No If yes, please explain: 2. Environmental Checklist Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 23 Complete Sections 17 and 18 for proposed Residential projects only: 17. Single or Multi-Family Units? 18. Will the proposed residential housing development meet any of the following Article 34 restrictions (low income housing development): A. Apply for property tax abatement B. Apply for long-term governmental financing C. Provide in excess of 40% of the housing units as low income housing with rent control and occupancy restrictions. Complete Section 19 for proposed Commercial projects only: 19. A. Type of Commercial or Office: Entertainment/Restaurant B. Is the project oriented___X___ Regionally, _______ City or _______ Neighborhood C. Anticipated hours of operation: Each show would be approximately 1.5 hours. Weekday shows start at 8:00 PM and would end around 9:30 PM. Saturday shows would be at 5:30 PM and 8:00 PM. Sunday shows would be at 1:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. Approximately 1.5 hours of preparation before and clean-up after can be assumed. D. Estimated employees per shift and number of shifts: Total Employees - 70 E. Location of loading facilities and anticipated hours of loading/delivery operations: Along building sides. Hours of loading/delivery would be during day. If use not Residential, Commercial or Office, indicate type of use below: 20. _____ Manufacturing/Warehousing ______ Institutional Other (Specify): A. Indicate major function: B. Anticipated hours of operation: C. Estimated employees per shift and number of shifts: D. Type, location and square footage of loading facilities: Complete Sections 21, 22, and 23 to determine whether a Water Assessment Study and Preliminary Grading/Drainage Plans and/or Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan needs to be submitted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . 21. Existing and proposed square feet of all on-site impervious surfaces, including all paved areas (i.e., paved parking lots and walkways areas, building footprint): Existing Square Feet: (Approx) 212,000 Proposed Square Feet: (Approx): 212,000 2. Environmental Checklist Page 24 · The Planning Center June 2010 22. Water Assessment – Does the project include a proposed new development or addition that meets any of the following criteria for a “Large Scale Development” (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9): Yes No A Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units? X B Proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space? X C Office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space? X D Hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms? X E Industrial manufacturing or processing plant occupying more than 40 acres or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area? X F Mixed use project that includes one or more of the above-listed projects in items 13(a) through 13(e)? X If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, the project may qualify as a “Large Scale Development” and you may need to submit a water assessment study which identifies existing water supply entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the project (please contact the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division). 23. Water Quality Management Plan – Does the project include a proposed new development or addition that meets any of the following criteria? Yes No A Residential development of 10 units or more? X B Commercial and industrial development (building square footage and paved parking areas) greater than 100,000 square feet? X C Automotive repair shop? X D Restaurant where the land area of the project site is 5,000 square feet or more (including paved parking areas)? X E Hillside development that requires grading of 10,000 square feet or more of surface area where existing slopes exceed 25%? X F Parking lot that is 5,000 square feet or more in area and/or which includes 15 or more uncovered parking spaces? X If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, preliminary grading/drainage plans and preliminary Water Quality Management Plans may need to be submitted as part of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (please contact the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Development Services Division). Please note that upon review of the submitted information, City staff may request additional supporting documentation to assist in the environmental analysis of your project to ensure compliance with CEQA. 24. Name of preparer: William Halligan, Esq. Relationship to property owner: Consultant Address: The Planning Center, 1580 Metro Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone No.: 714.966.9220 Preparer’s signature: Date: 2. Environmental Checklist Page 26 · The Planning Center June 2010 The County of Orange requires that the City notify the County of certain zoning actions. The following checklist will determine the need for notification. The County will be notified of any “yes” responses to questions 1 through 4: 1. Does this zoning action involve adoption or amendment to either (a) the Anaheim General Plan, (b) a Specific Plan, or (c) a Reclassification? Yes No IF YES, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 2. Does this zoning action involve land located east of the alignment of Weir Canyon Road? Yes No 3. Does this zoning action involve a residential project over 99 acres or 99 units in size? Yes No 4. Does this zoning action involve a non-residential project over 29 acres or a non-residential project with more than 99 employees? Yes No EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: 4) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) 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. 6) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. 7) 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). 2. Environmental Checklist Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 27 8) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: 9) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 10) 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. 11) 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. 12) 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. 13) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 2. Environmental Checklist Page 28 · The Planning Center June 2010 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X 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? X 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X 2. Environmental Checklist Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 29 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X 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? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X 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? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 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? X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 2. Environmental Checklist Page 30 · The Planning Center June 2010 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X 2. Environmental Checklist Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 31 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X k) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? X 2. Environmental Checklist Page 32 · The Planning Center June 2010 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? X 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? X XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 2. Environmental Checklist Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 33 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 2. Environmental Checklist Page 34 · The Planning Center June 2010 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? X i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? X j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? X k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? X XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X 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.) X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 35 3. Environmental Analysis Section 2 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. 3.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The surrounding area does not include scenic vistas that would be altered by the proposed project. A scenic vista is an area of natural landscaping that is within the viewshed of residents or travelers. The proposed project site and surrounding area are developed and flat. There are no scenic vistas that would be affected by the proposed project. In addition, the project site is already developed with two adjoined buildings and a parking lot. The proposed project would modify the existing buildings within the existing building footprint. The maximum height of the building would be increased by ten feet, which would not substantially affect scenic vistas in the surrounding area. Therefore, no project-related scenic vista impacts are anticipated. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project site does not contain scenic resources and it is not within the scenic highway corridor. The site is entirely developed with existing buildings and a parking lot, which will be modified as part of the proposed project. The nearest designated scenic highway is a portion of SR-91, between SR-55 and east of the City of Anaheim limits (Caltrans 2007). This portion is approximately six miles northeast of the proposed project site. Therefore, no project-related impacts to scenic resources are anticipated. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The visual character of the project site and surrounding area is typical of an urban commercial corridor. However, the existing buildings have been vacant for several years and have fallen in to disrepair. The proposed project would renovate the existing buildings so that they are meeting the existing city and state building codes and so that they may be used as a dinner theater. The parking lot would be modified to include more landscaping. Exterior changes to the buildings include alterations to the façade. The improvements to the project site would improve the visual character of the project site and retain the existing commercial character consistent with surrounding land uses. Therefore, no negative impacts to the visual character of the area would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site contains a vacant commercial building and parking lots. Although parking lot lighting is in place, this lighting is no longer used to light the site. There are no other sources of light on the project site. With the proposed project, improvements to the parking lot lighting would occur and signage on the building may have lighted features. Parking lot light may 3. Environmental Analysis Page 36 · The Planning Center June 2010 affect adjacent residences if it spills outside of the project site boundary and reaches adjacent property. Mitigation Measure 1 would require that lighting to be directed away or shielded from adjacent residences. Therefore, with the incorporated mitigation, the proposed lighting on the project site would not cause significant impacts to surrounding residences. Mitigation Measure 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans that detail the lighting systems for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or other light-sensitive uses. The system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, the requirement has been met. 3.2 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) into nonagricultural uses. The existing buildings and parking lot preclude the use of the site for agricultural purposes and there are no agricultural zoning or land use designations onsite. The proposed project would modify the existing buildings and parking lot, and no impacts to Farmland would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Development of the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or with a Williamson Act contract. The site is currently zoned as the ARSP and there are no Williamson Act contracts on the site or in its vicinity (CDC 2010a). Therefore, no impacts to agricultural land are anticipated. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. The project site is entirely urbanized and developed with existing buildings and a parking lot. No portion of the project site or the surrounding areas is forested. Therefore, no impacts to forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 37 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Modifications to the project site in accordance with the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The site is urbanized and currently developed with parking lots and buildings. The proposed project would renovate the existing buildings and modify the parking lots with additional landscaping. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area of the City of Anaheim and the development of the proposed project would not cause any additional changes to the existing environment of the project site or the surrounding areas. There are no areas of forest or agricultural land within the vicinity of the proposed project that would be converted to nonagricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, no impacts to forest or agricultural land are anticipated. 3.3 AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and lead (Pb). Areas are classified under the federal Clean Air Act as in either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), is designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, and for PM10, NOx, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. This section analyzes the types and quantities of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. A background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site, and air quality modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study. 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental effects of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. There are two key indicators of consistency: Indicator 1: Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 38 · The Planning Center June 2010 Indicator 2: Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. The proposed project is not a regionally significant project that would warrant Intergovernmental Review by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the southern California region, which is the basis of the AQMP projections. Furthermore, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than SCAQMD emissions thresholds, and would not be considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and impacts are less than significant in this regard. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes project-related impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of these facilities. Short-Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated by demolition, grading, earthmoving, and other construction activities; 3) motor vehicle emissions; and 4) emissions of volatile organic compounds from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Construction emissions were estimated using SCAQMD’s URBEMIS2007 inventory model. Construction activities are estimated to commence in mid-2010 and be completed within four to six months. Where specific information was not available, construction assumptions were based on URBEMIS2007 defaults. Results of the modeling are included in Table 1. As shown in this table, construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant. Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Source1 Pollutants (in pounds per day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 2 PM2.5 2 Demolition 1 12 7 <1 5 1 Fine Site Grading2 3 25 13 0 5 2 Building Construction 4 17 14 0 1 1 Architectural Coating 42 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Paving 4 20 13 <1 2 2 Maximum Daily Emissions3 50 37 28 <1 5 3 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. 1 Air quality modeling based on a four-month construction schedule and reconstruction of a 43,500-square-foot building. Assumes approximately 30,000 square feet of the existing building would be demolished and reconstructed for the dinner theater. Where specific construction information was not available, construction assumptions were based on URBEMIS2007 defaults. 2 Fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes quickly replacing groundcover in disturbed areas, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementation of equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by water two times daily, and reducing speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 3 Assumes overlap of building, architectural coatings, and paving phases. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 39 Long-Term Operation-Related Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project are associated with the new stationary sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) and mobile sources. The project is located within the Anaheim Resort area, approximately one mile southeast of the Disneyland Resort. According to the traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., approximately 20 percent of the proposed project patrons would arrive by walking, 15 percent would arrive by bus (transit bus or tour bus),10 percent would arrive by hotel shuttles, and 55 percent would arrive by passenger vehicle. The Battle of the Dance dinner theater would have a seating capacity of 950 seats, 70 employees, and host up to three shows per day. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 645 average daily passenger vehicle weekday trips (Friday) and a maximum of 1,043 average daily passenger vehicle weekend trips (Saturday). The Friday daily rates reflect two showings and the Saturday daily rates reflect three showings even though there would be one show on Friday (and week nights) and two on Saturday. This reflects a more conservative estimate and allows for flexibility in including the three shows on Sundays. Trips generated by shuttle buses and transit within The Anaheim Resort area are assumed to be existing trips and therefore are not included as part of the emissions inventory for the project. Because the majority of trips would occur on a weekend, operational phase air pollutant emissions were modeled for weekend events. Table 2 shows the daily operational emissions related to the project for weekend dinner theater events. As shown, project-related stationary source air pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds for operational activities, and impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, Saturday (in pounds per day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer Stationary Sources <1 <1 2 0 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 5 6 79 <1 16 3 Total Emissions 6 7 81 <1 16 3 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Winter Stationary Sources <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 Mobile Sources 6 8 73 <1 16 3 Total Emissions 6 8 74 <1 16 3 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, and nonattainment for PM10, NOx, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact (SCAQMD 1993). The URBEMIS modeling demonstrates that construction and operational activities would not result in 3. Environmental Analysis Page 40 · The Planning Center June 2010 emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold values, and therefore, the project does not add significantly to any cumulative impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike the mass (pounds per day) of construction and operational emissions shown in Tables 1 and 2, localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. However, Table 1 and Table 2 calculate the amount of project-related regional emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards according to the size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Construction LSTs Emissions generated by construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations. Table 3 shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during construction activities compared with the SCAQMD’s screening level LSTs. Sensitive receptors surrounding the site include residents adjacent to the project site. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only on site stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the project site are included in the analysis. Table 3 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Emissions, Screening Level Analysis (in pounds per day) Source1 NOx CO PM10 2 PM2.5 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 35 21 5 3 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 178 1,217 13 7 Exceeds Localized Significance Threshold? No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4 and SCAQMD, Localized Significance Methodology, 2006, October, Appendix A. Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 17 for a 4.8-acre site with sensitive receptors located within 25 meters (82 feet). Based on onsite air pollutant emissions. Notes: 1 Air quality modeling based on construction schedule. Where specific construction information was not available, construction assumptions were based on URBEMIS2007 defaults. 2 Fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, implementation of equipment loading/unloading procedures to reduce fugitive dust, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, and reducing the speed of onsite construction equipment to less than 15 mph. As shown in this table, maximum daily emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 41 Operational LSTs To estimate concentrations of air pollutants generated by operation of the project at nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors, the project’s maximum daily emissions were compared to the operational LSTs. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources are included in the analysis. Table 4 shows maximum daily operational emissions generated by the project compared to the LST. As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LST screening level criteria for CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Because the project’s stationary-source emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria, no air pollutant concentrations from project-related operational activities would exceed the California or federal AAQS, and no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Table 4 Maximum Daily Onsite Operational Emissions, Screening Level Analysis (in pounds per day) Source1 NOx CO PM10 2 PM2.5 2 Stationary Sources <1 2 <1 <1 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 178 1,217 3 2 Exceeds Localized Significance Threshold? No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4 and SCAQMD, 2006, Appendix A: Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 17 for a 4.8-acre site with sensitive receptors located within 25 meters (82 feet). In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the project site are included in the analysis. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots An impact is also potentially significant if emission levels exceed the state or federal AAQS, thereby exposing receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO called “hot spots.” These hotspots have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Note that the Federal levels are based on one- and eight-hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition will occur based on the state standards prior to exceedance of the federal standards. The project would generate an increase in vehicle traffic on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersection locations. CO hotspots have been found to occur only at signalized intersections that operate at or below level of service (LOS) E (Caltrans 1997). All local intersections currently operate at LOS D or better and will continue to operate at LOS B or better with the project during the morning and evening peak hours (see Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic). Consequently, the project would not generate any CO hot spots or site-sensitive receptors proximate to any intersections that are subject to significant CO concentrations. Furthermore, the SoCAB is designated as attainment for CO. As such, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No significant impact would result from this project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 42 · The Planning Center June 2010 Shuttle Bus Idling Prior to and after dinner theater performances, hotel shuttle buses would line up in the loading/unloading lane at the entrance area. Shuttle buses at the project site are subject to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule Section 2485, In-Use Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). The ATCM prohibits drivers of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles from idling the vehicles’ primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. With compliance of CARB Rule 2485, idling emissions from shuttle buses associated with the project would be extremely limited and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential odors resulting from the project would occur during the construction phase and would be associated with the application of asphalt and paint and the emission of construction vehicle exhaust. Nuisance odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Therefore, by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional whiff of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. No objectionable odors are anticipated to result from the operational phase of the proposed project. Cooking odors associated with dinner provided at the theater would not be objectionable. Furthermore, odor complaints are subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which requires that odors not result in a nuisance or annoyance to the public. Odor impacts resulting from the proposed project are not considered significant. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There are no sensitive habitats or candidate, sensitive, or special status species on the project site (City of Anaheim 2004; CDFG 2003). The project site contains two adjoined vacant buildings, and the remainder of the site is paved with a parking lot. There are no areas of open space that would support natural habitats or species listed as candidate, sensitive, or special status by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. There are no local or regional plans, policies, or regulations that protect habitat or species on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated. 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse effects on riparian or sensitive natural community habitats. The project site is urbanized and developed with a parking lot and existing buildings. The only areas of open space are strips of landscaping by the sidewalk along Harbor Boulevard and four landscaping islands on the western portion of the project site. The 2004 Anaheim General Plan does not identify any areas of sensitive biological habitat on the project site (City of Anaheim 2004). No project-related impacts to riparian or sensitive natural community habitat would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 43 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Federally protected wetlands would not be affected by development of the proposed project. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is meant to regulate the dredge and fill activities on wetlands and waters of the United States. The project site is urbanized and fully developed; it does not contain wetlands or other aquatic areas. The proposed site modifications and building renovations would not disrupt any existing wetlands and no impacts would occur. 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement or established migratory corridors of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. It would also not interfere with any wildlife nursery sites. The majority of natural habitat and open space in the City of Anaheim is in the eastern part of the City, where the City’s boundaries abut Chino Hills State Park and the Cleveland National Forest (City of Anaheim 2004). The proposed project site is urbanized and developed with parking lots and 43,500 square feet of building space. Therefore, it does not support natural habitat that would be used by wildlife species, including for migratory and nursery purposes. No project-related impacts to native fish or wildlife movement, migratory wildlife corridors, and nursery sites are anticipated. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The development of the proposed project may require the removal of existing trees on the project site. Existing trees include eucalyptus trees along Harbor Boulevard and the southern site boundary. The proposed site modifications to the parking lot may require the removal of some or all of these existing trees. Although the City has a tree ordinance that states “no person shall cut, trim, prune, plant, remove, spray, or in any other manner interfere with any street tree within the City of Anaheim without first having secured written permission from the Director of Community Services or his or her designee,” the project site does not contain any trees included on the City’s official tree species list. No specified trees would be impacted and no impacts would occur; no additional analysis is needed. 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). A portion of eastern Anaheim lies in the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional NCCP/HCP (City of Anaheim 2004). This habitat conservation plan was developed in 1996 to protect 37,378 acres of habitat and 39 special status species in central Orange County (USFWS 2008). The proposed project site does not lie within this NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 44 · The Planning Center June 2010 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? No Impact. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be “historically significant,” if it meets one of the following criteria: i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Existing buildings qualify as historic structures on the California historic registry if they meet the above criteria and if they were built over 50 years ago. The existing buildings on the project site do not meet these criteria and were built after 1960. The existing buildings are also not included on the City’s Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan. The proposed project would involve the remodeling of the larger of the two buildings and partially demolishing the smaller of the two. Together they would be used for the proposed dinner theater. The proposed modifications to the two buildings would not cause impacts to historic resources. No impacts would occur and no additional analysis is needed. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. The proposed site modifications and building renovations would not cause substantial changes to an archaeological resource. The site has already been disturbed and graded for commercial development. Site modifications include repaving the parking lot and the placement of additional landscaped areas throughout the parking lot and around the existing buildings. These modifications may require very minimal ground excavation in soil that has already been excavated and graded and would not disturb any unknown archaeological resources. Building renovation would be completed within the existing building footprint and no additional ground disturbance would occur. Project-related impacts to archaeological resources would not occur and no additional analysis is required. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The proposed site modifications and building renovations would not cause substantial changes to paleontological or geological resources. The site has already been disturbed and graded for commercial development. There are no identified unique paleontological or geological resources on the project site. Site modifications include repaving the parking lot and the placement of additional landscaped areas throughout the parking lot and around the existing buildings. These modifications may require very minimal ground excavation in soil that has already been excavated and graded and would not disturb any unknown paleontological or geological resources. Building renovation would be completed within the existing building 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 45 footprint and no additional ground disturbance would occur. Project-related impacts to paleontological resources would not occur and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The proposed project site has been disturbed and graded for commercial development. Melrose Abbey Memorial Park is the closest cemetery with buried human remains (Google Maps 2010). Since the project site has been previously disturbed and graded, the proposed site modifications and building renovations would not disturb areas of the ground that have not previously been disturbed. Since project implementation would not require grading to an increased depth, it is unlikely that human remains would be found. Therefore, no impacts to human remains are anticipated. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The proposed project site does not lie on any active or potentially active earthquake faults (City of Anaheim 2004). Although no Alquist-Priolo fault zones run though the City of Anaheim, two major fault zones are in close proximity to the City boundaries. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone runs past the City on the southwest, and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone runs past the City on the northeast. Potentially active fault zones, including the Norwalk, El Moderno, and Peralta Hills fault zones, also run in close proximity to the City. The closest fault to the project site is the El Moderno Fault. Although the exact location of this fault is not known, it is approximately three to five miles northeast of the proposed project site (City of Anaheim 2004). No active or potentially active faults run through the proposed project site and no impacts would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a seismically active area and the proposed project may be subject to seismic ground shaking. Although there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones running through the City of Anaheim, there are a number of faults surrounding the City that could cause seismic ground shaking on the project site (City of Anaheim 2004). The proposed project would include the remodeling of existing buildings. As part of the partial demolition and remodeling, the two buildings would be updated to meet existing City and state building codes that provide building regulations for earthquake safety. The City of Anaheim requires that all new construction and existing buildings meet building standards for earthquake safety through the provisions of Section 15.03, Building Standard Codes, and Section 15.07, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings, of the Anaheim municipal code. Section 15.07 of the municipal code specifically requires that buildings not meeting earthquake safety requirements must either be demolished or altered in order to meet the standards (City of Anaheim municipal code Section 15.07.050.010). Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or the California Building Code (CBC), has provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. Section 15.03 of the 3. Environmental Analysis Page 46 · The Planning Center June 2010 Anaheim municipal code adopts the provisions of the CBC (City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03). The proposed project would meet the building requirements that reduce the impacts of strong seismic groundshaking, and impacts would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The proposed development would not expose people or structures to damage caused by seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction tends to occur in areas with high water tables. Saturation of the soil by water will cause soil instability, resulting in liquefaction and structural damage. Seismic activity may induce liquefaction of the ground because of the shifting of geological plates and changes in ground stability. The project site is not in an area identified as having a risk for liquefaction, and no impacts would occur (City of Anaheim 2004). iv) Landslides? No Impact. The proposed project site is not susceptible to landslides, and the proposed site modifications and building remodeling would not expose people or structures to damage caused by landslides. The proposed project site and surrounding areas are flat, reducing the potential for onsite landslides to occur. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides are anticipated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur on the proposed project site. The site is currently developed with parking lots and 43,500 square feet of building space. The only unpaved areas are strips of landscaping and four landscaped islands in the parking lot. There are no areas of exposed topsoil. The proposed site modifications and building remodeling would increase the amount of landscaping in the parking lot. Structural changes would be made to the buildings. The modifications would not create new areas of exposed topsoil, and soil erosion would not occur. During construction, portions of topsoil on the site may be exposed. However, the amount of soil exposed during the construction phase would not be larger than an acre (and therefore would not require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) and total exposure would be temporary. The proposed project would not cause any substantial soil erosion and impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not on an unstable geologic unit or soil base. The site is underlain with Holocene alluvium, deposited between 1,000 and 10,000 years ago (City of Anaheim 2004). The flat terrain, previous development, and compacting of the project site reduces the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, or collapse to occur. As identified in Section 3.7(c)(iii), the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. Subsidence would occur when large amounts of groundwater pumping or mineral extraction would cause a lowering of elevation. There are no oil or gas wells or water wells within the vicinity of the project site, and risk of subsidence is low (City of Anaheim 2004). Therefore, no significant geologic impacts are anticipated. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 47 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are defined as soils with clay particles that react to changes in moisture content by shrinking when conditions are dry and expanding when conditions are wet. The shrinking and expansion of these soils can cause substantial damage to building foundations and infrastructure. The project site is underlain with alluvium deposits, which are typically gravel, silt, sand, and clay. More specifically, these soils are Hueneme fine sandy loam and drained and Metz loamy sand (USDA 1978). They are described as nonplastic, meaning they would not be expansive (USDA 1978). Prior site development and compaction also reduce the risk for soil expansion. Therefore, impacts related to soil expansion would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, no soil impacts related to septic tanks would occur. 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section analyzes the project’s contribution to global climate change impacts in California through an analysis of project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The primary GHG of concern is carbon dioxide (CO2), which constitutes the majority (greater than 99 percent) of project-related emissions. Pursuant to Section 15064.4, Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency must consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: · The extent to which the project may increase (or reduce) GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; · Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; · The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.1 In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the project. Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life-cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project is not available and is not included in the analysis.2 A background discussion on the regulatory setting, methodology, and modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study. 1 A plan must be adopted through a public review process and include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. 2 Lifecycle emissions are the GHG emissions from raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal and include all intervening transportation emissions caused by the product’s existence. Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction over the lifetime of the project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials is also not known, calculation of lifecycle emissions would be speculative. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 48 · The Planning Center June 2010 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40-plus years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which will address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. In accordance with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory and the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis below provides the conclusions on the project-specific impact towards the cumulative impact of global climate change. The Technical Advisory acknowledges, however, that in the absence of formally adopted significance thresholds for measuring GHG emissions, local agencies will have to make significance determinations on a project-by-project basis, focusing on whether the GHG emissions from a project have the potential to have a significant impact on climate change. Annual GHG emissions from project-related mobile and stationary sources and for project-related indirect emissions from purchased energy were calculated for construction and operation of the project and evaluated for the potential to substantially contribute to GHG emissions in California. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. The project would generate approximately 92 metric tons (MTons) of GHG emissions in 2010. GHG emissions generated by construction activities would cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project (approximately four to six months) and would therefore be a small fraction of total project-related emissions when considering the longevity of operation emissions associated with the project. Furthermore, because the project would not exceed the regional thresholds for criteria pollutants established by SCAQMD, GHG emissions are not likely to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to construction activities. Consequently, the project would not significantly contribute to the cumulative impact of global climate change during construction activities. Operation Operation emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from transportation, energy, waste use and treatment, waste disposal, and area sources. GHG emissions from electricity use are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy) that is produced offsite. Area sources are owned or controlled by the project (e.g., natural gas combustion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. The project is located within The Anaheim Resort, approximately one mile southeast of the Disneyland Resort. According to the traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., approximately 20 percent of the patrons would arrive by walking, 15 percent would arrive by bus (transit bus or tour bus); 10 percent would arrive by hotel shuttles; and 55 percent would arrive by passenger vehicle. The Battle of the Dance dinner theater would have a seating capacity of 950 seats, 70 employees, and host up to three shows per day. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 645 average daily passenger vehicle weekday trips and a maximum of 1,043 average daily passenger vehicle weekend trips. Trips generated by shuttle buses and transit are assumed to be existing trips and therefore are not included as part of the emissions inventory for the project. Table 5 shows the GHG emissions that would be generated from the operational phase of the project. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 49 Table 5 Project-Generated GHG Emissions, Operational Phase Source GHG Emissions MTons/Year Percent of Total Transportation1 1,492 79% Electricity Purchased Energy2 247 13% Water Demand and Treatment3 12 1% Total Energy 259 14% Waste and Recycling4 83 4% Area Sources5 58 3% Total all Sectors 1,892 100% Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. 1 short ton (Ton) equals 0.9071847 Notes: 1 URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total CO2e emissions from gasoline while CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). Based on weekend events. Because there are fewer weekday events, the GHG emissions inventory provides a conservative inventory for the project. 2 CO2e emissions calculated using energy usage factors and emission rates from the United States Department of Energy, EIA, 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption, December 2006, Table C14; and EIA, Updated State-and Regional-Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity, May 2002. 3 CO2e emissions from the energy intensity of water are based on the CEC’s California’s Water Energy Relationship (2005) of 12,700 Kwh/MG for Southern California. 4 CO2e emissions from waste generation are based on the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) created by the USEPA and the CalRecycle’s California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. 5 Assumes CO2 represents 99.6 percent of total GHG emissions from gasoline while CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases comprise the remaining percent (BAAQMD 2008). As shown in the table, the project would generate approximately 1,892 MTons of GHG per year, or 1.9 MTons per service population.3 The total GHG emissions onsite from the project would be nominal. As described above, because the project caters to vacationers within The Anaheim Resort district, only 55 percent of the patrons of the dinner theater would arrive via passenger vehicle. The remainder of patrons would arrive by hotel-provided shuttle buses, transit, or walking. In addition, because the project would not exceed the regional emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants established by SCAQMD, GHG emissions are not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. The project’s GHG emissions would be further reduced from compliance with these statewide measures. 3 Service population is a per capita metric that includes total employees and spectators. For the purpose of this assessment, service population is based on a total of 950 seats and 70 employees. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 50 · The Planning Center June 2010 The state of California recently adopted the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which became effective on January 1, 2010. Because the project would be constructed after this date, it would be constructed to achieve these energy efficiency standards, which require 15 percent more energy efficiency than the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.4 In addition, CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have adopted new fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley II. Furthermore, as described above, only 55 percent of the patrons of the dinner theater would arrive via passenger vehicle. The remainder of patrons would arrive by hotel-provided shuttle buses, transit, or walking. Table 6 is a year 2020 emissions inventory of the project with Scoping Plan emission, which is approximately 11 percent less with reductions associated with the Scoping Plan. The proposed project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California’s ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Table 6 Project-Generated GHG Emissions, Operational Phase with Scoping Plan Source GHG Emissions MTons/Year Percent of Total Transportation1 1,325 79% Electricity Purchased Energy2,3 210 13% Water Demand and Treatment4 10 1% Total Energy 220 13% Waste and Recycling 83 5% Area Sources3 50 3% Total All Sectors 1,677 100% Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4. 1 short ton (Ton) equals 0.9071847 metric ton (MTon) Notes: 1 Assumes a 42.8 percent increase in fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles from 2009 to 2020 in the CARB 2008 Technical Advisory. Pavley 2 would require an average fleet fuel economy of new cars of 43 mpg by 2020 compared to an existing average of 24.4 mpg. Based on EMFAC fleet mix 1976 through 2020 and an average fuel efficiency across all model years of 24.0 mpg compared to 21.6 mpg without Pavley (or 11.2% increase in fuel efficiency). 2 Assumes an increase in renewable energy production of 21 percent. Existing renewable energy production is currently 12 percent of the statewide energy supply, and the CARB Scoping Plan goal is 33 percent. 3 Assumes an increase in 15 percent energy efficiency from the 2005 to 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Building Code). 4 Assumes a 20 percent decrease in per-capita water use in accordance with the statewide Draft 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project site contains two adjoined vacant commercial buildings, surrounded by a paved parking lot. The previous use of the adjoined buildings was a Toys “R” Us, which did not involve the use of hazardous materials that would contaminate the site. 4 California Building Standards Commission. 2008, July 17, California Adopts Nation’s First Statewide Green Building Code. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 51 Operation The proposed use of the site, a dinner theater, would require minimal use of potentially hazardous materials, such as cleaning solutions and solvents, pesticides, and paints. These products would be similar to typical commercial and residential products and their use would be for intended purposes, reducing any potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. Construction Remodeling of the existing buildings would require partial demolition of the smaller of the two buildings. This building may contain lead-based paint (LBP) and/or asbestos-containing material (ACM), both of which are hazardous materials. During partial removal of the building, LBP and ACMs may need to be transported from the project site to a disposal site. Prior to demolition, the building would be assessed for the presence of LBP and ACM. Removal of ACMs would comply with state regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1403. Rule 1403 specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and cleanup procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials. Removal of LBP, should it be found in the building, would comply with OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926. The OSHA rule establishes standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure. The standard also includes requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring. Because 29 CFR Part 1926 is an existing federal law, compliance is mandatory. Furthermore, Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8, identifies procedures for accreditation, certification, and work practices for LBP and lead hazards. The remodeling of the existing buildings and operation of the proposed dinner theater would not cause the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operational use of the proposed project would require use of solutions and solvents typical of commercial and residential use. Construction activities would be completed in compliance with state and federal regulations for ASM and LBP, reducing potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. Operational and construction activity impacts are less than significant and no additional analysis is needed. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not cause significant hazards related to upset or accident conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials. Operation of the proposed project would require minimal use of potentially hazardous materials, such as cleaning solutions and solvents, pesticides, and paints. These products would be used as they are intended and the quantities used would be small. Their potential for the creation of a significant public hazard through their accidental release is low. Construction activities during the remodeling of the existing buildings would require the partial demolition of the smaller of the two buildings. This building may contain LBP and ACM and the demolition of this building may cause a release of these hazardous materials. As stated above in Section 3.8(a), demolition of buildings with LBP and ACM must follow state and federal regulations (SCAQMD’s Rule 4013 and OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926). In the event that the building contains either of these materials, the potential for hazards to occur during an accidental release would be low with compliance with these regulations. Operational and 3. Environmental Analysis Page 52 · The Planning Center June 2010 construction activities would cause less than significant hazardous materials impacts and no additional analysis is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Significantly hazardous materials, including hazardous emissions and acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, would not be emitted within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school by the proposed project. The project site is within a quarter mile of two existing schools, Parkview Elementary School at 12272 Wilken Way (0.15 mile to the northwest) and Earl Warren Elementary School at 12871 Estock Drive (0.25 mile to the southeast) (Google Maps 2010). Operation of the proposed project would not require the emission, use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials other than the use of typical solutions such as cleaners, pesticides, and paints. Remodeling of the existing buildings would require the partial demolition of the smaller of the two buildings, which may contain LBP or ACM. As stated above in Section 3.8(a), demolition of buildings with LBP and ACM must follow state and federal regulations (SCAQMD’s Rule 4013 and OSHA Rule 29 CFR Part 1926). In the event that the building contains either of these materials, the potential for the exposure of school campuses to these hazardous materials would be low with compliance with these regulations. Project-related hazardous materials impacts to schools within a quarter mile of the project site would be less than significant and no additional analysis is needed. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials. The project site was used for commercial retail purposes and it is now vacant. A search of hazardous waste databases did not identify the site hazardous materials lists (GeoTracker 2008; USEPA 2009a; USEPA 2009b). A tire facility at 2201 South Harbor Boulevard was included on both the Facility Registry System (FRS) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAInfo) databases. This is the closest facility to the proposed project site to be identified on a hazardous materials list. The proposed project would not be implemented on a site that is identified as a hazardous materials site, and it would not put the public or environment at risk. Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materials are anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not within an airport land use plan and it is not within two miles of a public use airport. The nearest public use airports are John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, approximately eight miles southeast of the project site, and the Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately six miles northwest of the project site in Fullerton. No safety hazards for people residing or working in the area would occur as a result of the proposed project and no impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not in the vicinity of a private use air strip. The nearest airstrip is the Los Alamitos Army Air Field, in Los Alamitos, approximately seven miles to the west of the project site (AirNav 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would not place people residing or working in the project area at risk to hazards related to private air strips and no impacts would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 53 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. No emergency response or evacuation plans would be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. Since the project site is unused, there are currently no evacuation plans for the existing buildings. As part of the project approval process, the final site plan would be reviewed by the City of Anaheim Fire Department for approval of emergency access. The approval of the proposed project is dependent on the fire department’s review of the site plan. As this is a required process for all construction in the City, impacts would be less than significant and no additional analysis is needed. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project site is in a heavily urbanized area and is not prone to wildland fires. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) breaks down fire severity zones into local responsibility areas (LRA) and state responsibility areas (SRA). LRAs are governed by local government, and SRAs are governed by state government. The fire hazard severity zones for both LRAs and SRAs include moderate, high, and very high risk zones. Portions of Anaheim are in LRAs as defined by CALFIRE. The eastern portion of the City of Anaheim, where the City abuts the Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills, is identified as having moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones (CALFIRE 2007b). The area adjacent to the City on the east is also in an SRA with a very high fire hazard severity zone (CALFIRE 2007a). Since the project site is not in a fire hazard severity zone and is surrounded by urban development, the risk of wildland fires occurring on the site is very low. Therefore, people and structures would not be exposed to wildland fire hazards and no impacts would occur. 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Under the County of Orange National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB), for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), the City of Anaheim is required to ensure that discharges from its municipal storm drain systems do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water quality standards (designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives) for surface waters or groundwater. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be prepared for any project that involves “significant redevelopment” (Orange County Public Works 2009). Significant redevelopment is defined as projects that include the addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on a developed site. The project site is almost entirely impervious. As they are currently proposed, the modifications to the parking lot and existing buildings are not expected to disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. It does not trip the trigger in Chapter 7 of Orange County’s Drainage Area Management Plan to be considered a “Priority Project.” Therefore, it would not require development of a WQMP, as it does not propose to remove and replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. However, if, instead of overlaying the parking lot with new asphalt or similar maintenance, the project scope changes to include rehabilitation or expansion of the parking lot or other impervious surfaces (more than 5,000 square feet), then the project will become a “Priority Project” and will need to develop a WQMP (see Mitigation Measure 2 below). 3. Environmental Analysis Page 54 · The Planning Center June 2010 Coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity is required for projects that disturb one acre or more of soil (Construction General Permit 99-08-DWQ, SARWQCB 2009). The proposed site modifications would not disturb more than an acre of soil, and a SWPPP would not be needed to show compliance with the general permit. The following mitigation measure has been added to meet conditions of approval of the City regarding the need for a WQMP. In the event that the project disturbs more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, the requirements of this mitigation measure must be followed. With mitigation, project-related water quality impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Mitigation Measure 2. Prior to site construction, the amount of total impervious surface square footage disturbance must be determined by the property owner/developer. In the event that construction activities disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, or that any other criteria requiring the need for a WQMP are met as detailed in Section XII.B. of the current Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030), a WQMP must be prepared. The water quality management plan (WQMP) must identify a program for the implementation of specific structural and nonstructural BMPs to address water quality issues so that predictable runoff is controlled. The WQMP will identify the location and type of structural BMPs that “infiltrate, filter, or treat” either the volume or flow rate of stormwater runoff. A final detailed site plan and WQMP must be approved by the City Engineer. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not lower groundwater levels through the depletion of groundwater supplies or by changing groundwater recharge onsite. As described in section 3.17(d) of this IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project would use approximately 10.7 acre-feet (3,484,260 gallons per year) of water per year of the City’s total water supply. Approximately two-thirds of this water comes from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the remainder is imported through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (City of Anaheim 2009). Since the site is developed, the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has anticipated use of the site for commercial purposes and demonstrated that adequate supplies exist to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not create demands on the City’s water supply that could result in impacts to the local groundwater table. Local recharge rates would increase as part of the proposed project. The site is almost entirely impervious with the exception of four plantings on the western portion of the parking lot. The majority of precipitation flows off the project site and does not drain into the ground. The implementation of the proposed project would include more landscaping in the parking lot and allow for greater infiltration of rainwater into the groundwater table. Therefore, no significant impacts to groundwater supplies are anticipated. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. No Impact. No changes to the drainage pattern of the project site will occur with the implementation of the proposed project. The project site is currently developed with a parking lot and two vacant commercial 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 55 buildings. Stormwater runoff drains from the paved parking lot to the surrounding streets and driveways. There are no open areas with natural vegetation or exposed soil and no drainage courses such as rivers or streams on or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter any existing rivers or streams or alter the drainage pattern of the area. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact. No changes to the drainage pattern of the project site will occur with the implementation of the proposed project. The project site is currently developed with a parking lot and two vacant commercial buildings. Stormwater runoff drains from the paved parking lot to the surrounding streets and driveways. There are no open areas with natural vegetation or exposed soil and no drainage courses such as rivers or streams on or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter any existing rivers or streams or substantially increase existing runoff. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed with two adjoined buildings and a parking lot. Most stormwater runoff sheet-flows across the project site. Stormwater that enters the surrounding streets drains from the project site to the south and then west, eventually reaching the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (OCFCD 2004). The proposed site modifications would slightly decrease the amount of impervious surface by increasing the amount of landscaping on the project site. Stormwater flow would remain the same or decrease with the addition of new landscaping islands on the site. Since stormwater from the project site is already entering the existing stormwater system and the proposed site modifications would not significantly alter site drainage, the existing stormwater system would be capable of handling the runoff from the site and no significant impacts are anticipated. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Water quality would not otherwise be degraded as a result of the proposed project. Under the County of Orange NPDES permit issued by the SARWQCB, for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), the City of Anaheim is required to ensure that discharges from its municipal storm drain systems do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water quality standards (designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives) for surface waters or groundwater. Therefore, no additional impacts to water quality would occur as a result of the proposed project. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located in a 100-year flood zone, and no housing would be placed on the project site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Act’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the project site is in the “0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone,” which is the same as the 500-year flood hazard zone designation (FEMA 2010). The proposed project would not include housing and it would not place development within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, no impacts related to flood hazards are anticipated. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 56 · The Planning Center June 2010 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures in a 100-year flood hazard zone. According to the FEMA FIRMs, the project site is in the “0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone,” which is the same as the 500-year flood hazard zone designation (FEMA 2010). The proposed project would not include the development of new structures, and it would not cause redirection of flood flows in 100-year flood hazard zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. The western half of the City of Anaheim, including the project site, is within the flood zone of the Prado Dam (City of Anaheim 2004). Prado Dam is approximately 17 miles northeast of the project site near the cities of Chino, Norco, and Corona in Riverside County. Failure of the Prado Dam would cause flooding at the project site. The City has included a number of policies in its general plan to reduce the impacts of flooding hazards. These policies include: · Evaluate all development proposals located in areas that are subject to flooding to minimize the exposure of life and property to potential flood risks (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-1). · Provide appropriate land use regulations and site development standards for areas subject to flooding (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-2). · Encourage new development to maintain and enhance existing natural streams, as feasible (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-3). · Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-4). · Continue to comply with the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act requirements and State of California Model Ordinance (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-5). · Continue to work with the Orange County Flood Control District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to receive and implement updated flood control measures and information (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-6). · Utilize flood control methods that are consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Policies and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Safety Element, Policy 3.1-7). Construction in the City of Anaheim must also comply with Chapter 17.28 (Flood Hazard Reduction) of the City’s Municipal Code, which contains regulations for development within flooding hazard areas in the City (City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 17, Land Development and Resources, Chapter 17.28, Flood Hazard Reduction). Compliance with the City’s general plan policies and development regulations in the municipal code would reduce flood hazard impacts due to dam failure to levels that are less than significant. No additional analysis on flooding hazards is necessary. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 57 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. The City of Anaheim General Plan identifies the Walnut Canyon Reservoir to be potentially susceptible to crack during relatively strong groundshaking and seismic activity. The proposed project site is not within the flood hazard zone of the Walnut Canyon Dam (City of Anaheim 2004). In addition, the policies of the general plan and development restrictions described above in section 3.9(i) reduce potential flooding impacts to levels that are less than significant. Tsunamis are large ocean waves created by an offshore seismic event. The California Department of Conservation (CDC) has mapped the tsunami hazard areas along the coast of California. The City of Anaheim is not close enough to the coast to experience risks related to tsunamis (CDC 2009). Therefore, no impacts related to tsunamis would occur. Mudflows can become hazards when developed areas are adjacent to sloped terrain with exposed soil. Heavy rains may cause the soil to flow into the developed areas, causing damage to property and risking the lives of residents. The project area is in an urbanized, flat area, where there are no adjacent areas of open space and little potential for mudflows. Therefore, no impacts related to mudflows would occur and no additional analysis is required. k) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? No Impact. Water quality degradation that would affect downstream beneficial uses would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Under the County of Orange National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB), for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), the City of Anaheim is required to ensure that discharges from its municipal storm drain systems do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water quality standards (designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives) for surface waters or groundwater. Therefore, no additional impacts to water quality would occur as a result of the proposed project. 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project site is designated as Commercial Recreation in the Anaheim General Plan and is occupied by a vacant commercial building. In general, land uses in the area are commercial, service, and retail-oriented, and include hotels, restaurants, and retail centers. These types of land uses are all consistent with the ARSP, which supports these types of resort- and tourism-oriented uses. Low-medium-density residential land uses, consisting of two townhome communities, surround the site on the east and southeast. The proposed project would be consistent with the development objectives of the ARSP and it would be designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Therefore, no land use impacts related to established communities would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 58 · The Planning Center June 2010 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project site is in the ARSP (No. 92-2), which covers approximately 580 acres between I-5 and Walnut Street, including the Anaheim Convention Center (City of Anaheim 2009). The southern portion of the specific plan covers commercial and hotel businesses along Harbor Boulevard, including the proposed project site. All areas under the specific plan are zoned as ARSP. Under this zoning, the project site is categorized as “CR – Commercial Recreation District,” which permits a dinner theater by conditional use permit and the expansion of nonconforming uses and/or structures that brings the use and/or structure into greater conformity with the intent of the ARSP. The Anaheim General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial Recreation. The proposed project would be consistent with this land use designation. Therefore, no land use impacts to plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project site would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP or NCCP. A portion of eastern Anaheim lies in the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional NCCP/HCP (City of Anaheim 2004). This habitat conservation plan was developed in 1996 to protect 37,378 acres of habitat and 39 special status species in central Orange County (USFWS 2008). The proposed project site does not lie within this NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The California Geological Survey maps areas with known mineral resource availability as part of the Mineral Resources Project. This was created after the passage of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 to identify and prevent the development of areas with valuable mineral resources (CDC 2010b). The proposed project site is not identified as a mineral resource zone (City of Anaheim 2004). Areas in Anaheim with known mineral resources are generally east of the project site, along the Santa Ana River (City of Anaheim 2004). The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource, and no impacts to mineral resources of regional or statewide importance would occur. 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? No Impact. As stated in 3.11(a), there are no identified mineral resource zones on or around the project site. The City has mineral resources generally along the Santa Ana River, to the east of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource, and no impacts to mineral resources of local importance would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 59 3.12 NOISE Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and the City of Anaheim, under the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan, have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Characterization of noise and vibration, existing regulations, and calculations for construction noise and vibration levels can be found in Appendix C to this Initial Study. Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: · Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. · Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. · A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. · Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level. · Day–Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. · Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Existing Noise Environment The project site is located in a commercial area of Anaheim known as The Anaheim Resort. In general, existing sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site include noise from traffic on the local roadway network and stationary sources of noise associated with commercial/retail land uses and the Disneyland Resort, located one mile north of the site. To assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Noise modeling was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Existing traffic noise was based on the traffic volumes provided by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (2010). The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along roadways currently range from approximately 57 dBA to 75 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 7. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 60 · The Planning Center June 2010 Table 7 Existing Traffic Noise Modeling, 24-Hour Roadway Segment Average Daily Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1 Friday Saturday Orangewood Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 71.2 69.2 w/o Harbor Boulevard 71.6 69.3 Wilken Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 56.8 56.5 w/o Harbor Boulevard 58.9 57.1 Hotel Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 62.4 62.1 Chapman Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 73.7 72.4 w/o Harbor Boulevard 73.5 72.7 Harbor Boulevard n/o Orangewood Avenue 74.5 74.0 btwn Orangewood Avenue and Wilken Way 74.8 74.5 btwn Wilken Way and Hotel Way 74.2 73.9 btwn Hotel Way and Chapman Avenue 74.3 74.1 s/o Chapman Avenue 73.9 73.4 Source: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model Average daily traffic volumes and speed limits based on information obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates. n/o: north of; s/o: south of; e/o: east of; w/o: west of; btwn: between 1 Based on a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Methodology The analysis of noise impacts considers project construction and operation noise as defined by the City of Anaheim (for stationary and construction noise impacts) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology (for construction vibration impacts). The proposed project would have a significant adverse noise or groundborne vibration impacts if the project results in any of the following: Noise · Project-related construction activities occurring outside of the hours specified (7:00 AM and 7:00 PM) under City Municipal Code (Chapter 6.70). · Operation-related stationary sources would generating noise levels that exceed the City of Anaheim exterior noise standard of 60 dBA for extended periods of time. · For a substantial increase in ambient traffic noise levels, based on land use compatibility chart for the community noise of the State of California, project-related mobile sources would cause an audible change in noise levels. A minimum 3 dB change in noise levels is necessary for human hearing to discern a change. Project-related mobile source noise would increase the CNEL at any noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dBA or more when the CNEL is 60 dB or greater at residential areas. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 61 Groundborne Vibration · Construction activities result in vibration levels of 78 VdB at vibration-sensitive uses, which is the vibration level that is barely perceptible based on the FTA vibration criteria during the daytime. · Construction activities generate vibration that is strong enough to cause vibration-induced structural damage based on the FTA, which is 0.2 in/sec for typical wood-framed buildings and 0.5 in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber buildings. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project entails the construction and operation of a dinner theater. The following describes project-related impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of this facility. Mobile-Source Noise Impacts The project is located within the Anaheim Resort area, approximately one mile southeast of Disneyland. According to the traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., approximately 20 percent of the proposed project patrons would arrive by walking, 15 percent by bus (transit bus or tour bus); 10 percent by hotel shuttles; and 55 percent by passenger vehicle. The Battle of the Dance dinner theater would have a seating capacity of 950 seats, 70 employees, and host up to three shows per day on weekends and one show per day on weekdays. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 645 average daily and 144 peak hour passenger vehicle weekday trips (Friday) and a maximum of 1,043 average daily and 200 peak hour passenger vehicle weekend trips (Saturday). Table 8 shows the traffic noise levels generated on the surrounding roadways on a weekday and weekend. As shown, the difference in traffic noise from the existing conditions is the increase in noise attributable to project-related traffic at buildout. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 62 · The Planning Center June 2010 Table 8 Traffic Noise Modeling Roadway Segment Weekday Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1 Weekend Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1 Existing Future With Project Increase Existing Future With Project Increase Orangewood Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 71.2 71.2 0 69.2 69.2 0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 71.6 71.6 0.1 69.3 69.4 0.1 Wilken Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 56.8 56.8 0 56.5 56.5 0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 58.9 58.9 0 57.1 57.1 0 Hotel Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 62.4 62.4 0 62.1 62.1 0 Chapman Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 73.7 73.7 0 72.4 72.5 0.1 w/o Harbor Boulevard 73.5 73.5 0 72.7 72.8 0.1 Harbor Boulevard n/o Orangewood Avenue 74.5 74.5 0 74.0 74.1 0.1 btwn Orangewood Avenue and Wilken Way 74.8 74.9 0.1 74.5 74.5 0 btwn Wilken and Hotel Way 74.2 74.3 0.1 73.9 73.9 0 btwn Hotel Way and Chapman Avenue 74.3 74.4 0.1 74.1 74.1 0 s/o Chapman Avenue 73.9 73.9 0 73.4 73.4 0 Source: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model Average daily traffic volumes and speed limits based on information obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates. n/o: north of; s/o: south of; e/o: east of; w/o: west of; btwn: between 1 Based on a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Project-related noise impacts may occur if there are substantial noise increases (+3 dB or more) in comparison to Without Project conditions when CNEL is 60 dBA or greater in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. Project-related traffic would result in a maximum noise increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL on Orangewood Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard (weekday and weekends), Chapman Avenue on weekends, and Harbor Boulevard north of Orangewood Avenue on weekends, and Harbor Boulevard between Orangewood Avenue and Chapman Avenue on weekdays. Consequently, traffic noise would not be substantial, and exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of established thresholds from project-related vehicle noise would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Stationary-Source Noise Impacts Operational nonvehicular noise sources at the project site include mechanical equipment and parking lot noise. In addition, interior noise generated by audio equipment in the dinner theater has the potential to affect the exterior noise environment if not properly designed. Noise-sensitive areas include the multifamily residences bordering the site to the south and southeast. Mechanical Equipment Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other mechanical systems would be installed to comply with the City’s municipal code regulating noise. Typical noise levels from HVAC equipment can range from 29 to 68 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet (SSA Acoustics. 2009). The adjacent noise-sensitive land 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 63 uses are located a minimum of 50 feet from the building to the south and 200 feet from the building to the east. Consequently, HVAC equipment would be selected based on its sound power (Lw) rating to ensure that noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at adjacent land uses. Use of such equipment would not substantially elevate average daytime noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, and noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Parking Lot Prior to and after dinner theater performances, hotel shuttle buses would line up in the loading/unloading lane at the entrance area. Shuttle buses can generate noise levels of up to 68 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 1998).5 However, shuttle buses at the project site are subject to CARB Rule Section 2485, which prohibits commercial motor vehicles from idling their primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. With compliance of CARB Rule 2485, idling from shuttle buses associated with the project would be extremely limited (Mitigation Measure 5). In addition, shuttle buses would congregate in the front of the building, adjacent to the western property line and away from residents to the southeast and east. Therefore noise associated with shuttle bus idling is less than significant. Noise associated with parking lots includes car horns, noise from brakes and tires, automatic lock beeps, alarms, radios, door slams, and conversations between people using the parking lot. Additionally, noise levels levels ingress and egress through the parking lot would also contribute to the general parking lot noise environment. According to the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 4.18, Amusement and Entertainment Premises – Restaurants and Bars, a permit is required for operation of the project. The City requires a security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and a plan for control of noise affecting nearby residences (Mitigation Measure 6). With adherence to the security plan to control vehicular and pedestrian traffic entering and exiting the dinner theater, parking lot noise would be minimized. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. Dinner Theater The dinner theater would include live entertainment/music, with seating for 950 patrons. The dinner theater would host one show on weekdays and up to three shows per day on weekends. Shows would start between the hours of 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM and last approximately 1.5 hours. Therefore, the last show would end by 9:30 PM. Noise generated within the dinner theater as a result of live entertainment/music has the potential to generate substantial levels of noise that can be audible outside the building. In addition, patrons in the parking lot have the potential to generate noise (e.g., talking, vehicle idling, etc.) in the evening hours, when the ambient noise environment is low. Average interior noise levels in entertainment venues range from 84 to 97 dBA Leq (Lawrence and Turrentine 2008). If the doors are open, outdoor noise levels can be as high as 85 dBA Leq. However, the dinner theater would be located at the rear of the building. The foyer of the building separates the dinner theater from the entry area. The front entryway doors face Harbor Boulevard and not the adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Consequently, the building is currently designed to minimize noise intrusions to the adjacent neighborhood. However, emergency exits are located at the rear of the building. These doors would need to remain closed to prevent noise intrusion. In addition, these doors would need to be sound-insulated to reduce interior– exterior noise transmission. Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code requires that noise generated for extended periods of time from the premises not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the property line of the affected residences. Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 would ensure that architectural features to reduce noise are incorporated into the project design and that emergency exits remain closed during the dinner theater shows to minimize noise intrusion into the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 5 Based on noise levels from a medium-duty truck. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 64 · The Planning Center June 2010 Mitigation Measures 3. The property owner/developer shall design the building to reduce noise intrusion to 60 dBA Leq or less at the property line to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. Emergency doors at the building exterior shall be double-insulated to prevent interior–exterior noise transmission. These design features shall be noted on all building plans. 4. The manager of the Battle of the Dance shall ensure that emergency doors located at the rear of the building are kept closed at all times during the operation of the dinner theater. 5. With enforcement by the City of Anaheim, the onsite manager shall monitor shuttle bus idling along Harbor Boulevard to ensure they are compliant with CARB Rule Section 2485, which prohibits commercial motor vehicles from idling their primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. 6. The property owner/developer shall design a security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and a plan for control of noise affecting nearby residences, as required by City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 4.18, Amusement and Entertainment Premises – Restaurants and Bars. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate vibration during construction activities from use of heavy construction equipment. Operation of the project would not generate substantial levels of vibration due to the lack of vibration-generating sources and therefore is not analyzed below. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and, therefore, impacts are based on the distance to the nearest building. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. The closest offsite vibration-sensitive structures to construction activity on the project site are the multifamily residences approximately 50 feet south and 200 feet east of the dinner theater building. Construction-related vibration impacts are described below. Vibration-Induced Structural Damage for Nearest Offsite Structure The FTA has established vibration level thresholds that would cause damage to building structures. The FTA criterion for vibration-induced structural damage is 0.2 inch per second for the peak particle velocity (PPV) for wood-framed structures. As shown in Table 9, project construction activities would not result in PPV levels that exceed the FTA’s criteria for vibration-induced structural damage. Therefore, project construction activities would not result in a significant vibration impact. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 65 Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure, Structural Damage Assessment Location RMS Velocity (in/sec)1 Significance Threshold (in/sec) Exceeds Significance Threshold? Residents to the Southeast2 0.003 0.2 No Residents to the East3 0.001 0.2 No Source: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microinch/second. Notes: 1 Vibration levels from the listed off-road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 2 At a distance of 50 feet from off-road construction equipment to the nearest residential structure. 3 At an average distance of 200 feet (center of construction activities onsite to nearest residences). Vibration Annoyance for Nearest Offsite Residence Table 10 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site to the nearest offsite vibration-sensitive structure. Maximum vibration is based on construction equipment operating directly adjacent to the property line. However, construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site. Therefore, although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities could be perceptible in certain instances, their impact would be limited because they wouldn’t occur frequently throughout the day, would occur in the daytime when people are least sensitive to vibration levels, and would only occur for a very limited duration when equipment would be working in close proximity. Therefore, construction vibration is based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) that exceed the FTA’s infrequent events criterion for residential land uses. Table 10 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residence, Vibration Annoyance Location Vibration Levels (VdB)1 Significance Threshold (VdB) Exceeds Significance Threshold? Residents to the Southeast 522 78 No Residents to the East 403 78 No Source: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. 1 Vibration levels from the listed off-road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 2 At a distance of 50 feet from off-road construction equipment to the nearest residential structure. 3 At an average distance of 200 feet (center of construction activities onsite to nearest residences). The FTA criteria for perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime is 78 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) for residential uses. While construction equipment could be operating as close as 50 feet to the nearest residential structure, the majority of heavy construction activities would be operating at greater distances (200 feet or farther). In addition, heavy construction equipment would only be in operation for a short period during paving activities, especially in proximity to sensitive uses. Average vibration levels would not exceed the FTA criteria for vibration annoyance. Because project construction activities would not generate average vibration levels that exceed the FTA’s vibration annoyance threshold, no significant vibration impact from exposure of persons to excessive levels of vibration would occur during project construction activities. Therefore, project development impacts related to vibration annoyance would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 66 · The Planning Center June 2010 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in section 3.12(a) above, increases in noise levels related to the proposed project would not substantially increase the existing noise environment. Similarly, noise from project traffic along local roadways would not significantly increase noise levels in the project area and would likewise not result in a significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Construction Vehicles The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the expected number of workers and trucks is minimal (Caltrans 1998).6 The truck trips would be spread throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. The existing roadway volumes within the study area range from 33,000 to 39,000 average daily vehicular trips (Kunzman 2010). Construction worker and vendor trips would be negligible compared to the volumes of traffic currently generated. Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes, and no mitigation measures are required. Construction Equipment Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction noise levels reported in Bolt et al. were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the proposed project. Noise levels are the average noise levels for each construction phase. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. The dominant noise source from most construction equipment is the engine, and noise levels from construction activities are dominated by the loudest piece of construction equipment. Noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from use of all applicable construction equipment at the same time at average distances (center of construction site to nearest property line of nearest noise- sensitive receptor offsite) based on the construction phase and are shown in Table 11. 6 California Department of Transportation. 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 67 Table 11 Average Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Construction Phase Residences to the Southeast Residences to the East Ground Clearing/Demolition 84 72 Building Construction 84 72 Finishing and Site Cleanup 89 77 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman 1976, based on analysis for Industrial, Parking Garage, Religious, Amusement and Recreations, Store, Service Station. Average noise levels are based on the distance of the proposed structure to the property line. Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures. The dominant noise source from most construction equipment is the engine, and noise levels from construction activities are dominated by the loudest piece of construction equipment. Noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from use of all applicable construction equipment at the same time to the nearest residential property line. Noise levels at residential properties to the east and southeast would range from 72 to 89 dBA Leq. While the magnitude of noise is loud compared to the ambient noise environment, construction activities would fluctuate throughout the eight-hour work day as equipment would not be in use at one location for an extended period of time. Furthermore, construction activities would comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code that limits the hours of construction from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Overall, construction activities would be restricted to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, maximum noise levels would be infrequent throughout the work day, and construction noise would conclude once the exterior building modifications and parking lot pavement are completed (approximately four to six months). Additionally, implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce noise levels from construction activities. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts are less than significant at the residences with incorporation of the mitigation measures below. Mitigation Measures 7. Construction activities, deliveries, and haul trucks shall be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or a federal holiday for the duration of the construction period. 8. Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emissions. 9. Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 10. During construction, the construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas a minimum of 50 feet from adjacent residential land uses. 11. The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of construction contractor to respond in the event of a noise complaint. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 68 · The Planning Center June 2010 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project site is not within an airport land use plan and it is not within two miles of a public use airport. The nearest public use airports are John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, approximately eight miles southeast of the project site, and the Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately six miles northwest of the project site in Fullerton. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels, and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not in the vicinity of a private use air strip. The nearest airstrip is the Los Alamitos Army Air Field, in Los Alamitos, approximately seven miles to the west of the project site (AirNav 2010). Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels from a private airport, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. Substantial population growth would not be directly or indirectly induced with the implementation of the proposed project. Population growth is caused when development brings more people to an area through either the development of new housing or new employment-based businesses that provide new jobs in an area. Given the scope of the project and its projected number of employees (70), the proposed project would likely not increase the population in the area. It would include site modifications and building remodeling to support a dinner theater that caters to existing residents and tourists. It would not include the development of housing and, at full capacity, it would employ 70 people during performances. This number of employees would not require the construction of additional housing in the project vicinity and would not increase the local population. Therefore, substantial population growth would not occur as a result of this project, and no impacts would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would not displace existing housing and will not require the construction of replacement housing. The project site contains vacant commercial buildings and a parking lot; it does not contain housing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not cause impacts to existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people and would not require the construction of replacement housing. Vacant commercial buildings and a parking lot occupy the project site; there are no people living on the project site. Therefore, people would not be displaced as a result of the proposed project, and no impacts would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 69 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would bring people to the project site, requiring additional fire protection services. The project site is served by Anaheim Fire Department (AFD). The closest fire stations are Station No. 3, at 1717 South Clementine Avenue, about a mile northeast of the site, and the Disneyland Resort station, in Downtown Disney, about a mile northwest of the site (City of Anaheim 2010a). The proposed project would convert a vacant commercial building into a dinner theater, with approximately 950 seats. This would bring more people into the area during performances at the proposed dinner theater. However, based on comments from the AFD, the proposed project would not be required to pay fire service impact fees because it would not add square footage to the existing structures. Although the proposed project would bring additional people into the service area of Station No. 3 and the Disneyland Resort Station, the AFD has indicated that this increase would not cause significant impacts to fire services. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the need for police protection services in the City of Anaheim. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) has four police districts in the City. The project site is in the south district, which covers The Anaheim Resort area, south of Ball Road, East of Euclid Avenue, and west of the Santa Ana River. The project site is served by the City’s Police Department, with the closest station at the Disneyland Resort (1520 Disneyland Drive), about a mile north of the project site (City of Anaheim 2004). Police services most likely would be needed onsite if emergencies occurred during performances. With the exception of matinee performances on Sundays, the facility would be closed during the day. The APD reviews and provides safety recommendations for all new commercial developments in the City. They also participate in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) with local and regional police departments to ensure adequate police protection is supplied during events that demand extra resources (City of Anaheim 2004). Therefore, the proposed project would not have events that demand extra resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded police facilities. As a result, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated. c) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the need for school services. Development projects that include housing and increase the student population in a school district increase the need for school services. Since the proposed project would convert a vacant commercial building into a dinner theater and does not include housing, it would not increase the need for school services. No impacts to school services would occur, and no additional analysis is necessary. d) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the need for park services. Development projects that include housing and increase the population increase the need for park services. Since the proposed project would convert a vacant commercial building into a dinner theater and does not include housing, it would not 3. Environmental Analysis Page 70 · The Planning Center June 2010 increase the need for park services. No impacts to park services would occur, and no additional analysis is necessary. e) Other public facilities No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the need for public services, such as libraries. Development projects that include housing and increase the population increase the need for library services. Since the proposed project would convert a vacant commercial building into a dinner theater and does not include housing, it would not increase the need for library services. No impacts to library services would occur, and no additional analysis is necessary. 3.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities and would not cause the deterioration of these facilities. Development projects that increase the local and regional population cause an increase in the use of recreational facilities. The proposed project would not increase the local or regional population because it does not include the development of housing. The proposed conversion of the existing vacant buildings into a dinner theater would not cause deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and no impacts would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project would not create a need for expansion of or construction of new recreational facilities. Development projects that increase the local and regional population create a need for expanded or new recreational facilities. The proposed project would not increase the local or regional population because it does not include the development of housing. The proposed conversion of the existing vacant buildings into a dinner theater would not create a need for expansion of or construction of new recreational facilities, and no impacts would occur. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 71 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project by Kunzman Associates and is included as Appendix D of this IS/MND. The analysis of the TIA has been incorporated into this section of the IS/MND. Existing Conditions Existing Roadway Network The traffic study area shown in Figure 9, Traffic Study Area, encompasses the surrounding street network, including Harbor Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, Wilken Way, Hotel Way, and Chapman Avenue: Harbor Boulevard: This is a north-to-south, six-lane roadway with approximately 33,800 to 42,300 daily vehicles on Fridays and 30,000 to 39,000 vehicles on Saturdays in the study area. It is classified as a major arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. Orangewood Avenue: This is an east-to-west, four-lane roadway with approximately 18,300 to 19,900 daily vehicles on Fridays and 11,400 to 11,900 vehicles on Saturdays in the study area. Orangewood has two lanes west of Harbor Boulevard and four lanes east of Harbor Boulevard. It is classified as a secondary arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. Wilken Way: This is an east-to-west, two-lane undivided roadway with approximately 1,500 to 2,400 daily vehicles on Fridays and 1,400 to 1,600 vehicles on Saturdays in the study area. This street is designated as an interior street. Hotel Way: This is an east-to-west, four-lane roadway with approximately 2,400 daily vehicles on Fridays and 5,000 vehicles on Saturdays in the study area. Hotel Way is a private driveway in the City of Garden Grove. Chapman Avenue: This is an east-to-west, four-lane roadway with approximately 31,200 to 32,200 daily vehicles on Fridays and 24,100 to 25,900 vehicles on Saturdays in the study area. It is classified as a primary arterial in the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element. City of Anaheim Significance Threshold The City of Anaheim has established the following significant impact threshold based on level of service (LOS) standards. A significant impact would occur when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 0.05 or more at an intersection with an existing LOS of C, by 0.03 or more at an intersection with an existing LOS of D, or by 0.01 at an intersection with an existing LOS of E or F (See Table 12). Table 12 Criteria for Significant Traffic Impacts, City of Anaheim Level of Service Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C 0.701 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05 D 0.801 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03 E,F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01 Source: Kunzman Associates. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 72 · The Planning Center June 2010 Existing Traffic Conditions The TIA assessed the existing traffic conditions by compiling existing LOS and average daily trip (ADT) data. The ADTs for study roadways are shown in Figure 10, Existing Friday Average Daily Trips, and Figure 11, Existing Saturday Average Daily Trips. The LOS is based on the actual traffic volume at specified intersections compared with the capacities of those intersections. The existing LOS for study area intersections is based on manual Friday evening peak hour and Saturday evening peak hour intersection turning movement counts obtained in March 2010. Existing LOS is shown in Table 13, Figure 12, Existing Friday Evening Peak Hour Trips, and Figure 13, Existing Saturday Evening Peak Hour Trips. Table 13 Existing Levels of Service in the Study Area Intersection1 Traffic Control Peak Hour LOS Friday Evening Saturday Evening Harbor Boulevard at: Traffic Signal 1 Orangewood Avenue Traffic Signal 0.618-B 0.498-A 2 Wilken Way Traffic Signal 0.396-A 0.353-A 4 Hotel Way Traffic Signal 0.452-A 0.372-A 5 Chapman Avenue Traffic Signal 0.640-B 0.500-A Source: Kunzman Associates 2010. 1 The intersection number corresponds to the numbers in Figure 8. Project-Generated Traffic Kunzman Associates based projected trip generation on traffic counts taken in March 2010 at Medieval Times in Buena Park, a business with a similar restaurant/entertainment use. Because of the project’s location and type of business, mode choice reductions were applied to the traffic generation. On average, clients arrive at venues similar to the proposed project according to the following breakdown: · 20-25 percent by tour buses (60 passengers per bus) · 30-40 percent by walking, taxi, or shuttles from area hotels · 35-50 percent by car To accommodate the mode choice reductions, a conservative reduction was applied to the traffic generation. The TIA assumes a 20 percent reduction due to walking, a 5 percent reduction due to transit, a 10 percent reduction due to tour buses, and a 10 percent reduction due to shuttles. It is assumed that 55 percent of the clients would be arriving by car. The assumed reductions are based on the analysis in the Anaheim Gardenwalk Second Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared by BonTerra Consulting in March 2006. Alternative modes of transportation are also used at Medieval Times, but not to the degree that they are anticipated for the use at the proposed project. Therefore, the mode reductions of the Anaheim Gardenwalk IS/MND are used for this analysis. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 9 Traffic Study Area Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 3. Environmental Analysis Page 74 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 10 Existing Friday Average Daily Trips Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 3. Environmental Analysis Page 76 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 11 Existing Saturday Average Daily Trips Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 3. Environmental Analysis Page 78 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center •Figure 12 Existing Friday Evening Peak Hour Trips Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 54321 5 4 3 2 1 3. Environmental Analysis Page 80 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center •Figure 13 Existing Saturday Evening Peak Hour Trips Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 54321 5 4 3 2 1 3. Environmental Analysis Page 82 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 83 As shown in Table 14, the proposed project would generate 144 trips during the Friday evening peak hour, 200 trips during the Saturday evening peak hour, 645 daily trips on Friday, and 1,043 daily trips on Saturday. The Friday daily rates reflect two showings (for weekdays) and the Saturday daily rates reflect three showings (for weekends) even though there would be one show on Friday (and week nights), two on Saturdays, and three on Sundays. This reflects a more overall conservative estimate. Table 14 Project-Generated Traffic Time Period Trip Generation Rate Peak Hour Traffic Volume Daily Generation Rate Daily Traffic Volume Friday (PM Peak Hour 5:00 – 7:00 PM) Peak Hour In Peak Hour Out Subtotal 0.11 0.17 0.28 102 159 261 1.23 1,127 Mode Choice Reduction Walk Reduction (20%) Transit Reduction (5%) Tour Buses (10%) Shuttles (10%) Subtotal -52 -13 -26 -26 -117 -234 -59 -117 -117 -527 Friday PM Peak Hour Total 144 NA Friday Daily Total NA 645 Saturday PM Peak Hour (5:30 – 7:30 PM) In Out Total 0.14 0.24 0.38 137 227 364 2.00 1,898 Mode Choice Reduction Walk Reduction (20%) Transit Reduction (5%) Tour Buses (10%) Shuttles (10%) Subtotal -72 -18 -37 -37 -164 -380 -95 -190 -190 -855 Saturday PM Peak Hour Total 200 NA Saturday Daily Total NA 1,043 Source: Kunzman Associates 2010. Opening Year Project Traffic Contribution The opening year for the proposed project is 2010. To find the project’s contribution to opening year traffic conditions, the project-generated LOS at area intersections is combined with the existing intersection LOS. The resulting service levels are compared to the City’s significance thresholds to determine the project’s impacts. The study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS B or better during the Friday and Saturday PM peak hours for opening year 2010 with project conditions. As shown in Table 15, the project traffic contribution would not raise the LOS at study area intersections to levels that would be significant (see Table 12 for Anaheim’s significance thresholds). 3. Environmental Analysis Page 84 · The Planning Center June 2010 Table 15 Opening Year (2010) with Project Traffic Contribution Intersection Peak Hour Existing Opening Year (2010) With Project (without mitigation) V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C Increase Significant? Harbor Boulevard (NS) at: 1 Orangewood Avenue (EW) Friday PM Saturday PM 0.618 0.498 B A 0.631 0.513 B A 0.013 0.015 No No 2 Wilken Way (EW) Friday PM Saturday PM 0.396 0.353 A A 0.405 0.361 A A 0.009 0.008 No No 4 Hotel Way (EW) Friday PM Saturday PM 0.452 0.372 A A 0.504 0.416 A A 0.052 0.044 No No 5 Chapman Avenue (EW) Friday PM Saturday PM 0.640 0.500 B A 0.649 0.510 B A 0.009 0.010 No No Source: Kunzman Associates 2010. All intersections would operate at LOS A with and without the project except for the intersections of Chapman Avenue WITH Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue WITH Harbor Boulevard during the Friday PM peak hours, as shown on Table 15 and in Figure 14, Friday PM Peak Hour Trips (with Project). Figures 15, 16, and 17 show the Saturday PM peak hour trips, Friday average daily trips, and Saturday average daily trips, respectively. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Project-generated traffic would not affect the performance of the surrounding circulation system. As shown in Table 12, the City of Anaheim has threshold criteria for significant impacts to existing roadway levels of service. Peak hour traffic generated by the proposed project would not worsen the existing LOS at intersections in the study area (see Table 15) based on the City’s standards. No intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS with or without the proposed project. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site would not be altered with the implementation of the proposed project. Local mass transit routes, including buses serving the area, would be utilized by visitors to the proposed dinner theater. Therefore, no significant impacts to existing policies, plans, or programs meant to measure the effectiveness of a circulation system would occur. All impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) identifies Harbor Boulevard as a primary arterial in its system of designated highways and roadways (OCTA 2003). The LOS at specified intersections along Harbor Boulevard is monitored by OCTA. As shown in the TIA, the proposed project would not change the LOS at intersections along Harbor Boulevard (see Table 15). The traffic generated by the proposed project would not worsen service standards along Harbor Boulevard, and impacts related to congestion management would be less than significant. No additional analysis is required. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center •Figure 14 Friday PM Peak Hour Trips (With Project) Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 54321 5 4 3 2 1 3. Environmental Analysis Page 86 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center •Figure 15 Saturday PM Peak Hour Trips (With Project) Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 54321 5 4 3 2 1 3. Environmental Analysis Page 88 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 16 Friday Average Daily Trips (With Project) Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 3. Environmental Analysis Page 90 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 17 Saturday Average Daily Trips (With Project) Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALE 3. Environmental Analysis Page 92 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 93 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project would not change existing air traffic patterns. The redevelopment of the project site as a dinner theater would not increase the amount of air traffic entering or leaving airports, and it would not cause changes in flight patterns because of the height or location of the proposed structures. No impacts to air traffic patterns would occur, and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The use of the proposed project by vehicular traffic may increase hazards between vehicles and pedestrians. The entry and exit points off Harbor Boulevard would become busy before and after performances at the dinner theater, and Harbor Boulevard is a high-volume roadway. Vehicles entering and leaving would be trying to enter traffic on Harbor Boulevard while pedestrians are using the sidewalk. In addition, the north entrance/exit is not a signalized intersection, making control of traffic more difficult. The TIA has provided recommendations for onsite circulation. As part of the permitting process for the project, a pedestrian and vehicle security plan must also be provided by the property owner/developer. The incorporation of these improvements and the adherence to the City’s municipal code would reduce impacts related to hazardous design features to levels that are less than significant. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures 10 through 19, no additional analysis would be needed. Mitigation Measures 12. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implement the site-specific circulation and access recommendations as shown in Figure 18, Onsite Circulation Recommendations. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a Parking Management Plan to the Planning Department and City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. 14. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, Harbor Boulevard from the project’s north boundary to Hotel Way shall be constructed at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping, raised median, and parkway improvements, if necessary. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sight distances at the project accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer with respect to City of Anaheim standards. 16. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, onsite traffic signaling and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. 17. Developer shall provide a striped median on Harbor Boulevard prohibiting left turns southbound. The developer shall also provide the City of Anaheim with their fair share amount for the construction of future raised median on Harbor Blvd. Such amount, shall consider only the linear footage fronting the subject property and shall be credited towards Traffic Impact fees. 18. After building permit issuance, as is the case for any roadway design, the City of Anaheim should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 94 · The Planning Center June 2010 19. Bus parking spaces shall be clearly indicated on the site plan and located away from any residential or noise-sensitive adjacent land uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to meet the emergency access standards of the Anaheim Fire Department. With the implementation of the proposed dinner theater, emergency access routes to the proposed site would need to be identified. The City of Anaheim Fire Department must perform a site plan check prior to building permitting (City of Anaheim 2010b). As this is a required process for all construction in the City, impacts would be less than significant, and no additional analysis is needed. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is served by various public transit systems and would be included in City programs for traffic management. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) currently operates two bus lines within walking distance of the proposed project. OCTA Route 43 runs north-to-south on Harbor Boulevard between the cities of Costa Mesa and La Habra. The nearest bus stop is at Wilken Way. OCTA Bravo! service will be introduced in the near future. Bravo! is a limited-stop service that will run concurrently with Route 43. Transfers on Route 43 can also take riders to the Amtrak/Metro Station and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). OCTA Route 54 runs on Chapman Avenue, less than a quarter of a mile from the south. Route 54 is an east- to-west route running between Valley View Boulevard in the City of Garden Grove and Santiago Canyon College in the City of Orange. The nearest bus stop is at Harbor Boulevard. The project site is also accessible by the Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) transportation system, which is operated by the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) and serves The Anaheim Resort area and other portions of Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Orange. Because the proposed project is in The Anaheim Resort, it is required to financially join and participate in the ATN, which includes participation in the ART system, with a stop onsite for one or more ART routes. The attendees of the proposed dinner theater would be able to use these public transit systems, and implementation of the proposed project would not impact the existing bus routes. Pedestrian sidewalks would be maintained along Harbor Boulevard, and bicycle use of Harbor and the surrounding roadways would not be altered. The City of Anaheim adopted the Transportation Demand Ordinance in 1991 to reduce vehicle trips and encourage the use of public transit. The proposed project is required to contribute to Transportation Demand Management by implementing onsite taxi and shuttle bus loading zones. Mitigation Measure 20 outlines the components the project must implement, thereby reducing impacts to levels that are less then significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management by providing onsite taxi and shuttle bus loading zones and by joining and financially participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). The project shall provide a bus bay onsite acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for ART buses to transport guests to and from hotels, tourist attractions, and local airports. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 18 Onsite Circulation Recommendations Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc. 2010 NOT TO SCALEHarbor BlvdParkingParking Valet Parking Area Valet Parking Area ParkingParking DriveDrive Existing Traffic Signal Prior to project construction, the portion of Harbor Boulevard along the project’s frontage shall be constructed at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping, raised median, and parkway improvements, if necessary. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 96 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 97 g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A parking analysis was provided in the TIA prepared by Kunzman Associates (Appendix D). The existing parking lot would be repaved and restriped as part of the proposed project. Approximately 360 parking spaces would be provided. As with the rest of the traffic analysis in the TIA, Medieval Times was used as a model for parking conditions because it has similar operations. Observations of Friday and Saturday shows at Medieval Times provided the parking demand per seat at the restaurant. This demand rate was then applied to the number of seats at the proposed restaurant. Mode reductions, which account for the number of attendees walking or taking transit, tour buses, or shuttles to the performances, were applied to the total demands and an overage factor of 20 percent was applied, providing a more conservative analysis. The final parking demand resulted in 289 spaces on Friday nights and 317 spaces for Saturday nights. Weeknights are not expected to be as busy as Friday and Saturday nights, so overall parking demand is not expected to exceed these numbers. Although these numbers are within the available number of parking spaces, the TIA provided a parking management plan to reduce congestion and crowding in the parking lot. The incorporation of the parking management plan recommendations as mitigation measures (21 through 28) would reduce parking impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures 21. The Parking Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and the Traffic and Transportation Manager. The Parking Management Plan shall include the Parking Lot Plan required in section 18.116.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and shall include detailed information on how the valet parking program will operate through a valet and access plan, including the location of the loading zone for valet service. 22. The project site shall provide code-required parking spaces for the handicapped. Each specifically designated area should be clearly painted and signed. Signs shall be posted to clearly direct the appropriate attendees to the designated handicapped parking spaces. 23. Traffic-directing personnel shall be used to direct inbound drivers to empty parking lots, empty parking segments within a lot, and then to empty parking stalls. A traffic director shall be positioned at the entrance driveway of the lot to be filled next. Another traffic director should be located in the empty parking segment to direct the driver to an empty stall. As the lot fills to capacity, the directors in the lot shall communicate to the driveway director to start to fill the next lot. When a parking lot fills, a Type 1 Barricade with a sign placard reading “Lot Full” shall be placed across the entrance driveway. 24. Traffic-directing personnel shall have brightly colored vests so that they are highly visible for the attendees and for their safety. They should have walkie-talkies to ensure efficient communication. They shall be trained for maximum efficiency and safety. 25. Traffic-directing personnel shall be provided to assist drivers leaving the facility. 26. Valet parking areas shall be provided onsite and utilized in accordance with the Parking Management Plan. These areas shall be appropriately signed and striped. Pedestrian conflicts shall be minimized as much as possible by directing pedestrians to designated pedestrian crossings. During events, manual control could be necessary in the drop-off areas. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 98 · The Planning Center June 2010 27. A follow-up monitoring program shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the parking management plan. Peak periods shall be monitored in order to make changes to the parking management plan to improve operating conditions, if necessary. 28. The City Traffic Engineer shall visit the site once the project is constructed and in full operation and verify that the traffic operations are satisfactory. 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The development of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. The existing buildings on the project site are vacant and do not currently generate wastewater. The City of Anaheim collects wastewater through City-operated pipelines and trunk sewers, which connect to wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). OCSD has two treatment plants, one in Fountain Valley and one in Huntington Beach. Wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial customers is treated before it is either released into the Pacific Ocean or pumped back into the groundwater basin for reuse. OCSD operates the Groundwater Replenishment System in connection with the Orange County Water District. This operation pumps treated wastewater back into the Orange County Groundwater Basin for reuse as potable water (OCSD 2010). Wastewater generated by the proposed commercial project would enter City-owned pipelines and be treated by the OCSD. The wastewater generated by the proposed dinner theater would not cause OCSD to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWCQB. No impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements would occur, and no additional analysis is needed. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is developed with existing sewer and water lines, which connect to the City’s wastewater collection and water conveyance systems. All offsite City-owned wastewater facilities connect to the trunk sewers and wastewater treatment plants of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCWD). A sewer study completed by the City’s Public Works Department determined that wastewater flow from the proposed project would not cause negative impacts to the existing infrastructure in the City (Linker 2010). If determined appropriate by the Public Works Department, the project applicant would pay the sewer impact and improvement fee, as required for all new development in the City by Section 10.12.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The existing onsite water pipeline system would be used by the proposed project. As described below in Section 3.17(d) of this IS/MND, an estimated 290,355 gallons of water would be used per day by the proposed project. Existing water lines will deliver water to the proposed project. The construction of any connection lines or modifications to the existing infrastructure must be coordinated between the project applicant and the Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector as described below in Mitigation Measure 31. Since the proposed project is within the Anaheim Resort Area, a water facilities fee must be paid by the applicant, as described in Mitigation Measure 29 below. With the incorporation of mitigation measures 29 through 31 below, impacts to existing water and wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 99 Mitigation Measures 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay Anaheim Resort Area water facilities fees in accordance with the Rule 15E of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations ($0.39 per square foot). 30. Prior to the start of construction, all requests for new water service or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 31. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans the installation of a separate irrigation meter for total landscaped areas exceeding 2,500 square feet. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed site modification and building remodeling would not require the expansion of or construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed project site is currently developed with two adjoined buildings and a parking lot. Stormwater drainage is not well developed on the project site. Most stormwater runoff sheet-flows across the project site. Stormwater that enters the surrounding streets drains from the project site to the south and then west, eventually reaching the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (OCFCD 2004). The proposed site modifications would decrease the amount of impervious surface by increasing the amount of landscaping on the project site. Stormwater flow would remain the same or decrease with the addition of new landscaping islands on the site. Since stormwater from the project site is already entering the existing stormwater system and the proposed site modifications would not significantly alter site drainage, stormwater facilities would not need to be expanded nor new facilities built. Therefore, no impacts to stormwater drainage facilities are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Water is supplied to the project site by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD), a municipal water agency of the City of Anaheim. The APUD depends entirely on the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD. The 2010 UWMP for the City has not yet been completed; the most recent UWMP was completed in 2005. The UWMP is a planning document, required by California Department of Water Resources, to manage water supply and demand in the state. The proposed project would increase the amount of water used on the project site. Since the current site is unused, there is no existing demand for water. Implementation of the proposed project would use approximately 10.7 acre-feet (3,484,260 gallons of water per year). The total water demand is based on water demand of a dinner theater, Medieval Times, with similar operations in the City of Buena Park. Based on a review of the bi-monthly water consumption readings for the commercial and fire flow water meters, included as Appendix E to this IS/MND, Medieval Times uses about 580,710 gallons of water per month (City of Buena Park 2010). Since the proposed project would be about half the size of Medieval Times (43,500 square feet compared to approximately 94,500 square feet), the total projected water demand is reduced by half. This estimate, 3,484,260 gallons of water per year, or 290,355 gallons per month, would be slightly conservative since Medieval Times has activities not found in the proposed project that may increase water demand. These activities include the cleanup and 3. Environmental Analysis Page 100 · The Planning Center June 2010 care of horses used in the show and the maintenance of larger areas of landscaping at the Medieval Times site. Anaheim has a total water supply of about 72,000 acre-feet, or approximately 23.5 billion gallons (City of Anaheim 2009). About two-thirds of Anaheim’s water supply comes from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The remainder comes from imported water through the MWD (City of Anaheim 2009). Between July 2009 and June 2010, Anaheim must reduce the amount of water it draws from the Groundwater Basin to 62 percent (from 69 percent). On April 14, 2009, Anaheim’s supply of water from MWD was also reduced by 3.7 percent. To accommodate for water shortages and to reduce the City’s overall demand for water, the City set a goal to reduce water use in the City by 4.5 percent (or 950 million gallons) for the fiscal year between July 2008 and June 2009. It surpassed this goal by 22 million gallons and is working to encourage additional conservation, recycling, and water-reduction efforts to decrease water demand effort (City of Anaheim 2009). The proposed project’s projected water demand would be about 0.017 percent of the City’s total water supply. Although this is not a large percentage of the City’s water supply, the proposed project will be required to incorporate water conservation efforts where applicable, such as using drought-resistant landscaping and using low-flow faucets and toilets. The City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (Section 10.19 of the municipal code) has water efficiency requirements for new public and private projects in the City. For nonresidential projects, landscape plans covering more than 2,500 square feet or those otherwise requiring discretionary approval must incorporate the provisions of the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 10.19). The proposed project would be required to comply with this ordinance. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 32 and 33 would help reduce water demand of the proposed project throughout the project’s operation. Overall, the City would have sufficient water supplies to meet the needs of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant with the incorporated mitigation measures, and no additional analysis is needed. Mitigation Measures 32. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for the project, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscape and irrigation plans. 33. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the project, the property owner/developer shall install onsite piping with project mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation when it becomes available from the Orange County Sanitation District. e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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? No Impact. The wastewater generated by the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider. Wastewater in the City of Anaheim is collected through City facilities and then conveyed through trunk sewers and channels owned and maintained by the Orange County Sanitation District. Wastewater from the City is treated at various regional treatment facilities. Although the facilities on the project site are not currently being used, sewer infrastructure is in place from previous use of the site. A sewer impact study was prepared by the Anaheim Department of Public Works to determine the project’s impact to the City’s sewer system and wastewater treatment plant. The study determined that the proposed project would generate approximately 12,825 gallons of wastewater per day, which would adequately be served by the City’s infrastructure and would be treated at the wastewater treatment plants that serve the City 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 101 (Linker 2010). No impacts to wastewater treatment providers would occur, and no additional analysis is needed. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The solid waste generated by the proposed project would not cause landfills serving the City to exceed their capacity. A private company, Anaheim Disposal, collects and manages solid waste collection in the City of Anaheim. Commercial, residential, and industrial solid waste is collected, sorted for recyclables, and sent to landfills throughout Southern California. Orange County owns and operates three active landfills: the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill at 1942 North Valencia Avenue in Brea; Frank R. Bowerman Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine; and Prima Deschecha Landfill at 32250 La Pata Avenue in San Juan Capistrano (CalRecycle 2010a). These three landfills have a combined remaining capacity of approximately 184 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2010c). The project site is developed with a parking lot and vacant commercial buildings. Since the site is not being used, it does not generate solid waste. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of solid waste in need of disposal. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates solid waste generation by restaurants to be about 0.0108 tons per square foot per year (CalRecylce 2010b). The proposed project would be built within existing building shells; no expansions of building space would occur. The final building square footage would not exceed 43,500 square feet, resulting in 469.8 tons of solid waste per year. Based on a review of the remaining capacities of the landfills that serve the City of Anaheim, this amount of solid waste would be within the remaining capacities of the landfills (CalRecycle 2010a). No significant impacts would occur related to solid waste generation and no additional analysis is needed. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. All local governments, including the City of Anaheim, are required under Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling. In 2006, the latest year for which data are available, 55 percent of solid waste generated in the City of Anaheim was diverted, so the City is meeting its AB 939 goal (CalRecycles 2010a). The waste generated by the proposed project would be incorporated into the waste stream of the city, and diversion rates would not be altered. SB 939 impacts would not occur, and no additional analysis is required. h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of electricity. The site is served by the Anaheim Public Utilities. The existing infrastructure in the onsite buildings would be updated to meet the criteria of the City’s standards and to meet the demands of the dinner theater. The dinner theater would only be open in the evenings during the week and the afternoon and evening on the weekend, reducing the overall electric demand. Anaheim Public Utilities would be able to supply the site and would not need to build new systems. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no additional analysis is needed. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 102 · The Planning Center June 2010 i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? No Impact. The project site is served by the California Gas Company (CGS). Since the proposed project would involve modifications to an existing structure, no new gas lines or systems would need to be constructed. CGS would be able to serve the proposed project, and no impacts would occur. No additional analysis is required. j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? No Impact. The project site is served by AT&T phone service. Since the proposed project would involve modifications to an existing structure, the existing phone lines would be used for the proposed project. AT&T would be able to serve the proposed project, and no impacts would occur. No additional analysis is required. k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? No Impact. The proposed project would not create a demand for television service/reception. The proposed project would involve the remodeling of existing buildings to create a dinner theater. Television service would not be required for the proposed project, and no impacts would occur. No additional analysis is required. 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project site does not have any sensitive biological communities, wildlife populations, or recordings of rare or endangered species. It also does not have any historically significant or known paleontological or archaeological artifacts. The site has been developed in the past and contains an existing vacant commercial building and parking lot. The proposed project would involve repaving of the parking lot, remodeling of the larger of the two buildings, and partial demolition of the smaller of the two buildings on the existing building slab. Site modifications include repaving the parking lot and the placement of additional landscaped areas throughout the parking lot and around the existing buildings. These modifications may require very minimal ground excavation in soil that has already been excavated and graded and would not disturb any unknown archaeological or paleontological resources. Impacts to biological and cultural resources would not occur. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would change the use of the project site from “vacant” to a restaurant/entertainment use, thereby bringing more people to the project site during business operation. This would increase the need for utilities, public services such as fire and police, traffic, air pollution, noise, and emissions of greenhouse gases in the area. The initial study has 3. Environmental Analysis Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 103 found the environmental impacts in these categories to be less than significant or less then significant with mitigation on an individual basis. Cumulative impacts may occur in relation to these categories when these individual impacts are compounded with impacts of surrounding existing and proposed land uses. The CEQA process requires all future projects to evaluate their impacts on the existing environment. The City of Anaheim also provides guidelines and mandatory procedures for reducing environmental impacts to public services, utilities, traffic, air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gases through its adopted general plan and municipal code, including the building code and land use development code. The incorporation of guidelines and adherence to mandatory regulations and processes would reduce the cumulative environmental impacts of future projects in the City to less than significant levels. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would bring more people to the project site during business operation, thereby increasing traffic, air pollution, and noise levels in the area. Potentially significant impacts in these categories could directly or indirectly affect human beings. However, air quality impacts were found to be less than significant on an individual basis, and traffic and noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts to human beings would be less than significant with the incorporated mitigation measures. 3. Environmental Analysis Page 104 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 105 4. References 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES City of Anaheim. 2009, February 10. Initial Study for am Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Available at: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=1851. Accessed March 24, 2010. City of Anaheim. 2004, May. City of Anaheim General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. City of Buena Park, Water Services Department. April 2010. Consumption History for Medieval Times Dinner Theater (2-28-06 through 2-1-10). 4.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Linker, Keith. 2010, June 1. Principal Civil Engineer, City of Anaheim Public Works Department. Phone call. 4.3 WEB SITES AirNav. 2010, March 29. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports/. Accessed March 29, 2010. California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2010a. Index of Williamson Act contracts (FTP site). ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/. Accessed March 23, 2010. CDC. 2010b. California Geological Survey, Mineral Resources and Mineral Hazards Mapping Program. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/minerals/Pages/index.aspx. Accessed March 30, 2010. CDC. 2009, March 15. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Orange County. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Pages/Statewi de_Maps.aspx. Accessed March 30, 2010. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007a, November 7. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Orange County. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_orange.php. Accessed March 29, 2010. CALFIRE. 2007b, September 17. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Anaheim. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_orange.php. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010a. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Anaheim. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/Default.asp. CalRecylce. 2010b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Service Establishments. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm CalRecycle. 2010c. Solid Waste Information System. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/search.aspx. Accessed May 3, 2010. 4. References Page 106 · The Planning Center June 2010 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007, December 7. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. City of Anaheim. 2010a. City of Anaheim Fire Department, Fire Station Locations. http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=113. Accessed March 30, 2010. City of Anaheim. 2010b. Fire Prevention Services. http://www.anaheim.net/com_dev/ed/fire_prevent/. Accessed April 6, 2010. City of Anaheim. 2009, May. Water Situation Report. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/Suply/SituationRpt.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2010. Federal Emergency Management Act. 2010, March 29, 2010. Flood Map Viewer. https://hazards.fema.gov/wps/portal/mapviewer. Accessed March 29, 2010. Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). 2004. Orange County Flood Control Facilities. http://www.ocflood.com/Docs_DM.aspx. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2010. Orange County Sanitation District Facilities. http://www.ocsd.com/about/general_information/facilities.asp. Accessed March 25, 2010. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2003, November. Orange County Congestion Management Program. http://www.octa.net/ctfp/Final%20CMP%202003%20Document.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2010. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2009. Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/stormwater/oc_permit.shtml. Accessed March 24, 2010. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2008. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009a, April 10. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/rcris_query_java.html. Accessed March 29, 2010. USEPA. 2009b, December 10. Facility Registry System. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html. Accessed March 29, 2010. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP. http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/HCPs.html. Accessed March 24, 2010. Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim · Page 107 5. List of Preparers CITY OF ANAHEIM Jonathan Borrego Principal Planner, Anaheim Planning Department, Planning Services Division Della Herrick Associate Planner, Anaheim Planning Department, Current Planning THE PLANNING CENTER William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services Jamie Thomas, LEED AP Associate Planner Nicole Vermilion Senior Planner Leah Boyer Assistant Planner John Vang Assistant Planner 5. List of Preparers Page 108 · The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim Appendix A Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Amendments and Adjustments Appendix The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A: THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS In May 2004, the City of Anaheim certified The Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003041105) (Anaheim 2004c). The EIR evaluated impacts associated with the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As part of this analysis, EIR No. 330 evaluated impacts related to Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort SP 92-2, which was processed concurrently with the General Plan and Zoning Code update. This amendment expanded the ARSP area to include 26.4 acres along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue and north of Chapman Avenue. Both EIR Nos. 313 and 330, The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR and the General Plan Final EIR respectively, and their associated mitigation monitoring programs are available for review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department during normal business hours. ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS In September 1994, the City of Anaheim certified The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR No. 313 (State Clearinghouse No. 91091062) in support of the adoption of The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (Anaheim 1994b, 1994a). This EIR evaluated impacts associated with the establishment and implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) and created a mitigation monitoring program (MMP No. 0085) in order to mitigate any such impacts. At the time the ARSP was adopted, the Specific Plan area encompassed approximately 549.5 acres. The project site is located within the original boundaries of the ARSP. Since certification of EIR No. 313, proposed modifications to the ARSP have included twelve amendments and four adjustments. ARSP Amendment No. 1. In June 1997, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 344, Amendment No. 1 to the ARSP, and Conditional Use Permit No 3917. These actions designated 4.67 acres, located on the northern side of Orangewood Avenue and east of Harbor Boulevard, for Commercial Recreation land use and incorporated the site into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 3917 approved the conversion of an existing 139-unit, 2-story, 8-building apartment complex on this site into a 136-unit Vacation Ownership Resort (known as “Dolphin Cove”). An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of these actions and found that with implementation of the mitigation measures in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085, there would not be a significant impact associated with the actions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved along with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 096, which incorporated applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. ARSP Amendment No. 2. In October 1998, Amendment No. 2 to the ARSP was proposed to amend Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) to add “coffee house” as a Conditionally Permitted Accessory Use in conjunction with an Automotive Service Station. The Planning Commission denied the amendment and the Applicant subsequently withdrew their petition at the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting. ARSP Amendment No. 3. In July 1999, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 364 and Amendment No. 3 to the ARSP. These actions designated an approximate 0.73-acre site, located at the northwestern corner of Casa Grande Avenue and Casa Vista Street, for Commercial Recreation land use and reclassified the site into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) Zone. The site is developed with 44 guest rooms of a 100-room motel. Prior to the amendments, the site was designated for Medium Density Residential land uses, while the balance of the motel (lobby and 56 guest rooms) was included in the SP 92-2 Zone and designated for Commercial Recreation land uses. As a result of the amendments, the entire hotel site is designated for Commercial Recreation land use and located in the SP 92-2 Zone. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of these actions and found that, with the implementation of applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085, there would not be a significant impact associated with the actions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0108 was adopted, which incorporated applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. ARSP Amendment No. 4. In June 2004, the City Council adopted Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004- 00029, a comprehensive update of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. This code amendment incorporated Amendment No. 4 into the ARSP, which included modifications to Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) intended to streamline the project review process. EIR No. 330, certified in conjunction with the approval of the amendment, provided analysis of the amendment’s potential environmental impacts, as well as, analysis of the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419) and other related actions, including ARSP Amendment No. 5. ARSP Amendment No. 5. In June 2004, the City Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the ARSP in conjunction with a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Amendment No. 5 expanded The Anaheim Resort to the southern City limits by incorporating approximately 26.4 acres, located along Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue, into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) Zone. EIR No. 330 was certified in conjunction with the approval of these actions; applicable mitigation measures related to Amendment No. 5 are contained in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085a. ARSP Amendment No. 6. In February 2005, the City Council approved Amendment No. 6 to the ARSP. This amendment modified Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) to permit convenience markets to sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption, as an accessory use to service stations in conjunction with the relocation of an existing service station, if such service station is relocated from a location with street frontage on Harbor Boulevard to a location not fronting on Harbor Boulevard. The City Council determined that the amendment was within the parameters assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously certified EIR No. 313 for the ARSP. ARSP Amendment No. 7. In August 2006, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00042 and Amendment No. 7 to the ARSP to create a residential overlay that would allow the development of residential uses in certain targeted areas when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full service hotel. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of Amendment No. 7 and determined that with the implementation of the mitigation measures in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085b, there would not be a significant impact associated with Amendment No. 7, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved. ARSP Amendment No. 8. In April 2007, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2006- 00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP to allow for wholly-residential development, fifteen percent of which must be comprised of rental units affordable to low or very-low income households, on a designated 26.7-acre site located south and east of Katella Avenue and Haster Street. An addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Amendment No. 7 analyzed the environmental impacts associated with Amendment No. 8. The City Council determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum were adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for these actions. ARSP Amendment No. 9. In November 2007, City Council repealed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and initiated Amendment No. 9 to the ARSP to repeal Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP. In March 2008, City Council approved Amendment No. 9, which removed all provisions in Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) related to wholly- residential development, with the exception of residential uses in certain targeted areas when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300-room full service hotel (as approved by Amendment No. 7). The City Council determined that Amendment No. 9 did not constitute a “project” under CEQA, and, alternatively, if the amendment were to be considered a “project” that it would be exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). ARSP Amendment No. 10. In February 2008, Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment (Amendment No. 10 to the ARSP), Zoning Reclassification, Conditional Use Permit, Final Site Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map, and Tentative Tract Map to allow a 102-room hotel with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses and a 191- unit condominium complex on approximately 5 acres located at 2232 Harbor Boulevard, in the southern portion of the ARSP area. Prior to the City Council taking final action on this request, the applicant withdrew the proposal due to the approval of the “SOAR” Initiative (see ARSP Amendment No. 11). A mitigated negative declaration was prepared as the environmental documentation for this project. ARSP Amendment No. 11. In March 2008, City Council adopted an initiative measure (the “SOAR” Initiative) to amend the General Plan and ARSP to generally prohibit residential development within The Anaheim Resort unless such a project included environmental and economic analysis, city council approval and voter approval at a city election (General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00466 and Amendment No. 11 to the ARSP). Approval of the initiative measure did not require environmental review under CEQA. ARSP Amendment No. 12. In October 2008, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 12 to the ARSP to increase the allowable density on a 5.912-acre project site from C-R low density (50 hotel rooms per gross acre) to C-R Low Medium Density (75 hotel rooms per gross acre). A mitigated negative declaration was prepared as the environmental documentation for this amendment. ARSP Amendment No. 13 In March 2009, the City Council adopted Amendment No 13 to the ARSP to add the “Low Medium Density (Modified)” density category; modify the Central Core and Special Intersection Landscape Treatment exhibits to allow special landscape and hardscape treatments at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue; modify the sign code to allow a greater number and larger signs than currently permitted for hotels and accessory retail; allow changeable copy signs for hotels when not visible from any public right-of-way, murals, and building integrated multi-tenant signs subject to approval of a conditional use permit. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared as the environmental documentation for this amendment. ARSP Adjustment No. 1. In May 1999, the City Council approved Adjustment No. 1 to the ARSP, which amended Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) to modify the setback and yard requirements to reflect the local street status of Convention Way. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City Council determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. ARSP Adjustment No. 2. In September 1999, the City Council approved Adjustment No. 2 to the ARSP, which amended Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) to modify the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City Council determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. ARSP Adjustment No. 3. In May 2001, the City Council approved Adjustment No. 3 to the ARSP, which amended the temporary parking requirements in Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards). No environmental impacts are associated with this action. The City determined that the action was Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. ARSP Adjustment No. 4. In April 2004, the City Council approved Adjustment No. 4 to the ARSP, which amended Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (SP92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) to permit office uses in legal nonconforming buildings subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The City determined that the previously certified EIR No. 313 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 were the appropriate environmental documentation for the request. Environmental impacts associated with a specific office use in a legal nonconforming building are evaluated in connection with the Conditional Use Permit application. Appendix Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Appendix The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Appendix 1.1 AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. Air pollutants of concern include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx. This section analyzes the type and quantity of emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. Climate/Meteorology The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The air basin is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the site is the Santa Ana Fire Station (ID No. 047888). The average low is reported at 43.0°F in January and the average high is 84.7°F in August (WRCC 2009). In contrast to the very steady temperature pattern, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall in the project area averages approximately 13.62 inches per year, as measured in the project vicinity (WRCC 2009). Although the SoCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by off-shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB. Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Annually, typical winds in the project area average about 5 to 8 miles per hour during the day and 2 to 5 miles per hour during the night. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area. Air Quality Regulations, Plans and Policies The proposed project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). However, the SCAQMD reports to California Air Resources board (CARB), and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California and national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Ambient Air Quality Standards The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The FCAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the State AAQS by the earliest practical date. The State AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the Federal AAQS and are based on even greater health and welfare concerns. The AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect sensitive receptors, those most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Ozone (O3) 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Average * 0.03 ppm 1 hour 0.25 ppm * Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 * Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ) 24 hours * 35 μg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). Monthly 1.5 μg/m3 * Quarterly * 1.5 μg/m3 Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average * 0.15 μg/m3 Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 μg/m3 * Industrial processes. Source: CARB 2010 ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted on June 1, 2007, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOX, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of NOX and VOC by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming a bump-up (i.e., extended attainment date) is obtained. The AQMP provides local guidance for the State Implementation Plan, which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SoCAB is included in Table 2 The SoCAB is also designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO2, lead, and sulfates. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal PM2.5 standards by 2015 and the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024, and will most likely have to achieve the recently revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2020. The SCAQMD designated the SoCAB as nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and Lead (Los Angeles County only) under the CAAQS and attainment/maintenance for PM10 under the National AAQS (March 25, 2010). Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment1 Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment2 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Attaniment/Maintenance3 PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment4 NO2 Nonattainment5 Attainment/Maintenance SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment6 Attainment6 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: California Air Resource Board, based on 2004 State Area Designations and National Area Designations current as of July 2007. 1 Under prior standard. 2 May petition for Extreme. 3 Annual Standard Revoked September 2006. CARB approved SCAQMD’s redesignation request for the SoCAB on March 25, 2010. 4 The USEPA granted the request to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective as of June 11, 2007. 5 The state NO2 standard was strengthened in 2007 from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm. Under the revised standards, the entire SoCAB was designated as nonattainment on March 25, 2010. In addition, the USEPA adopted a new 1-hour NOx standard of 0.100 ppm on January 22, 2010. 6 The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are proposed as unclassified. (March 25, 2010) Existing Ambient Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and the City of Anaheim are best documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD. The project site is in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 – Central Orange County (Inland Orange County). The air quality monitoring station in SRA 17 is the Anaheim Monitoring Station. However, this station only monitors CO, NO2, O3, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore data was supplemented from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for SO2. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 3. The data show recurring violations of both the state and federal O3 standards. The data also indicate that the area regularly exceeds the state PM10 and federal PM2.5 AAQS. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at this station. Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations Pollutant/Standard 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ozone (O3)1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm State 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.0752 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 14 50 29 0.120 0.098 1 8 2 0.095 0.078 6 5 3 0.113 0.089 2 7 1 0.127 0.100 2 10 5 0.105 0.086 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Federal 8-Hour ≥ 9.0 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 4.09 0 0 3.27 0 0 2.90 0 0 2.91 0 0 3.44 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.254 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.122 0 0.089 0 0.114 0 0.086 0 0.093 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)3 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.04 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.008 0 0.008 0 0.005 0 0.004 0 0.003 Coarse Particulates (PM10)1 State 24-Hour > 50 μg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 μg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3) 7 0 74.0 3 0 65.0 7 0 104.0 6 15 489.05 3 0 61.0 Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1 Federal 24-Hour > 656,7 μg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3) 20 58.9 13 54.7 7 56.2 14 79.4 13 67.8 Source: CARB 2010. ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Monitoring Station. 2 The USEPA recently revised the 8-hour O3 standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, effective May 2008. 3 Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 4 The NOX standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1-hr standard to 0.18 ppm. In addition, the USEPA adopted a new 1-hour standard of 0.100 ppm on January 22, 2010. 5 Included data related to an exceptional event (such as a wildfire). 6 Percentage of samples exceeding standard. 7 The USEPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3; this standard did not take effect until December 2006. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors can include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Generally, industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Methodology Projected construction- and operation-related air pollutant emissions are calculated using the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS2007) inventory computer model distributed by the SCAQMD. URBEMIS2007 compiles an emissions inventory of construction, stationary, and vehicle emissions sources. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. Thresholds of Significance CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed through an analysis of localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine project-specific and cumulative impacts on air quality within the SoCAB, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Volatile Organic Gases (VOC) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Coarse Inhalable Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Fine Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day CO Hotspot Analysis Exceedance of the one- and eight-hour ambient air quality standards would constitute a significant air quality impact: • 1-hour = 20 parts per million • 8-hour = 9 parts per million Localized Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at the project site (off-site mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project air pollutant monitoring station area, or source receptor area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. The LSTs for a 4.8-acre project site in SRA 17 for sensitive receptors at 25 meters (approximately 82 feet) are shown in Table 5. If emissions exceed the LST then dispersion modeling needs to be conducted using the thresholds in Table 6 for emissions that exceed the LSTs shown in Table 5. Table 5 Localized Significance Thresholds Threshold (lbs/day) Air Pollutant Construction Operation Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) 178 178 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,217 1,217 Coarse Particulates (PM10) 13 3 Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 7 2 Source: SCAQMD 2006, Appendix A: Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 17 for a 4.8-acre site within sensitive receptors located within 25 meters (82 feet). Table 6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Based on AAQS for Projects Larger than 5 Acres Air Pollutant (Relevant AAQS) Concentration 1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm 8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm 1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS)1 0.100 ppm 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)2 10.4 μg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)2 10.4 μg/m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 μg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 μg/m3 Notes: ppm – parts per million; μg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter 1 Updated based on the new CAAQS. 2 Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an allowable change in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant. 1.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is from fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG—water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming effect to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. Regulatory Settings Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level Currently there are no adopted regulations to combat global climate change on a national level. However, recent statutory authority has been granted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that may change the voluntary approach taken under our current administration to address this issue. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the USEPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) if it determines that it poses a threat to human health. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA declared CO2 a threat to public health and welfare, which is the first step towards development of AAQS standards for this air pollutant. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level Assembly Bill 32 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG. AB 32 follows the first tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S- 3-05, signed on June 1, 2005, which requires the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Executive Order S-3-05 also requires the state to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by year 2050. Projected GHG emissions in California are estimated at 596 million metric tons of CO2e on 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (471 million tons) of CO2e for the state. The 2020 target requires emissions reductions of 169 million MTons, approximately 30 percent of the projected emissions compared to business-as-usual (BAU) in year 2020 (i.e., 30 percent of 596 MTons). CARB defines BAU in their Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002-2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as is typical practice in 2002-2004. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan are: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards. • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent. • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system. • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets. • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard • Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long- term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Table 7 shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, local land use changes are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments will play in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target. Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low-impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer vehicle miles traveled. Table 7 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMT CO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined2 NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB 2008. Note: the percentages in the right-hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTons and the Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTons of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2e 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Regional Level In 2008, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long- range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Riverside. The GHG emission reduction targets for each region are required to be established no later than September 30, 2010. Once the GHG emissions reduction targets for each region have been established, SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their Regional Transportation Plan. While there is no deadline for adoption of the SCS, it is anticipated that the first plans will not be released until 2011, at the earliest. The SCS sets forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide individual jurisdictions with growth strategies that together achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, then the MPO is required to prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target could be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures. Thresholds of Significance The CEQA Guidelines recommend that a lead agency consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: 1. The extent to which the project may increase (or reduce) GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions1. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research – SB 97 OPR released a Technical Advisory for addressing climate change through CEQA in June 2008. In their guidance document, OPR recommends that each public agency develop its own consistent approach to performing a climate change analysis based on best available information. OPR states that compliance with CEQA for global climate change analyses entails three basic steps: 1) identify and quantify GHG emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities; 2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and 3) if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significance. For projects where GHG emissions are considered significant, the California Attorney General has prepared a fact sheet listing various mitigation measures to reduce the project’s contribution to global climate change impacts (OPR 2008a). 1 OPR recommendations include a requirement that such a plan must be adopted through a public review process and include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. South Coast Air Quality Management District The issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. Currently SCAQMD is in the process of establishing a threshold for GHG emissions to determine the project’s regional contribution toward global climate change impacts for California SCAQMD. On December 5, 2008, SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MTons) of CO2e for industrial projects that they are designated as the Lead Agency for under CEQA (SCAQMD 2008). BAAQMD Table B: Generalized GHG Emissions Factors (lbs/usage unit)BAAQMD Table B: Generalized GHG Emissions Factors (lbs/usage unit)BAAQMD Table B: Generalized GHG Emissions Factors (lbs/usage unit)BAAQMD Table B: Generalized GHG Emissions Factors (lbs/usage unit)FuelFuelFuelFuelCO2CO2CO2CO2CH4CH4CH4CH4N2ON2ON2ON2OUnitUnitUnitUnitCO2CO2CO2CO2CH4CH4CH4CH4N2ON2ON2ON2OTotal CO2eTotal CO2eTotal CO2eTotal CO2eCO2CO2CO2CO2CH4CH4CH4CH4N2ON2ON2ON2OGWPGWPGWPGWP111121212121310310310310Percent CO2ePercent CO2ePercent CO2ePercent CO2eLiquid FuelsDistillate Fuel (Fuel Oil, Diesel)22.40.000530.00019Gallon22.40.01110.058922.47099.7%0.0%0.3%Jet Fuel21.10.000520.00019Gallon21.10.01090.058921.17099.7%0.1%0.3%Kerosene/Naphtha21.50.000500.00018Gallon21.50.01050.055821.56699.7%0.0%0.3%Liquified Petroleum Gases (LPG)12.80.000250.00002Gallon12.80.00530.006212.81199.9%0.0%0.0%Motor Gasoline19.60.000550.00020Gallon19.60.01160.062019.67499.6%0.1%0.3%Residual Fuel (Bunker C Fuel Oil)260.000220.00021Gallon260.00460.065126.07099.7%0.0%0.2%Aviation Gasoline18.40.000520.00019Gallon18.40.01090.058918.47099.6%0.1%0.3%Bio-diesel20.70.000490.00018Gallon20.70.01030.055820.76699.7%0.0%0.3%Propane12.70.000000.00000Gallon12.70.00010.000112.700100.0%0.0%0.0%Butane14.70.000000.00000Gallon14.70.00010.000114.700100.0%0.0%0.0%Gaseous FuelsNatural Gas120.60.000200.000201000 ft3120.60.00420.0620120.66699.9%0.0%0.1%Landfill Gas110.50.210500.000241001 ft3110.54.42050.0744114.99596.1%3.8%0.1%Digester Gas104.70.029970.000301002 ft3104.70.62940.0930105.42299.3%0.6%0.1%Carbon Monoxide116.10.002700.000191003 ft3116.10.05670.0589116.21699.9%0.0%0.1%Refinery Waste Gases1390.003200.000221004 ft31390.06720.0682139.13599.9%0.0%0.0%SolidsRefuse/Waste2,0000.297900.08980Ton20006.255927.83802034.09498.3%0.3%1.4%Woor and Other3,8140.297900.08980Ton38146.255927.83803848.09499.1%0.2%0.7%Agricultural Waste Burning1740.140000.35000Ton1742.9400108.5000285.44061.0%1.0%38.0%Petroleum Coke6,7690.449200.10630Ton67699.433232.95306811.38699.4%0.1%0.5%Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2008, December. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Use Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California)Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California)Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California)Commercial - Climate Zone 4 (Coastal California) Land UseLand UseLand UseLand Use Area (ftArea (ftArea (ftArea (ft 2222)))) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption (kWh/ft(kWh/ft(kWh/ft(kWh/ft 2222/Year)/Year)/Year)/Year) Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Energy Consumption KWH/YearKWH/YearKWH/YearKWH/Year lbs of COlbs of COlbs of COlbs of CO 2222e/Yeare/Yeare/Yeare/Year Public Assembly 43,500 19.7 856,950 541,860 Total CommercialTotal CommercialTotal CommercialTotal Commercial 43,50043,50043,50043,500 144144144144 856,950856,950856,950856,950 541,860541,860541,860541,860 Tons/yearTons/yearTons/yearTons/year 271271271271 lbs/daylbs/daylbs/daylbs/day 1,4851,4851,4851,485 TotalTotalTotalTotal Annual Electricity UseAnnual Electricity UseAnnual Electricity UseAnnual Electricity Use CO2eCO2eCO2eCO2e KWH/YearKWH/YearKWH/YearKWH/Year 856,950856,950856,950856,950 lbs/Yearlbs/Yearlbs/Yearlbs/Year 541,860541,860541,860541,860 GWH/YearGWH/YearGWH/YearGWH/Year 1111 MTons/yearMTons/yearMTons/yearMTons/year 246246246246 Tons/YearTons/YearTons/YearTons/Year 271271271271 lbs/daylbs/daylbs/daylbs/day 1,4851,4851,4851,485 SourcesSourcesSourcesSources Note: New structures would be constructed to meet newer California Building Code energy efficiency requirements California Energy Emission FactorsCalifornia Energy Emission FactorsCalifornia Energy Emission FactorsCalifornia Energy Emission Factors 0.631 lbs of CO2/kwh SCE* 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California US EUA http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html GHG Potential - Coversion to CO2eGHG Potential - Coversion to CO2eGHG Potential - Coversion to CO2eGHG Potential - Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwhlbs of CO2e/kwhlbs of CO2e/kwhlbs of CO2e/kwh 0.6320.6320.6320.632 Conversion FactorsConversion FactorsConversion FactorsConversion Factors 0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 Metric Tons 0.000293 BTU (British Thermal Units) in a kwh 471,000,000 tons of CO2e in 1990 and Goal for 2020: AssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptions 1 Commercial energy use based on Table C20 and C14 (where climate specific information was not available) US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 1 Residential energy use based on US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov Table US1. Total Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Intensities, 2005. Part 1: Housing Unit Characteristics and Energy Usage Indicators Released January 2009. Based on CARB emissions inventory of GHG emissions for the State of California in 1990 of 471 million short tons of CO2e (427 million metric tons of CO2e) of in state emissions adopted in December 2007. * As reported to California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) for SCE Average Passenger Car US Fuel Efficiency (1980-2002) - Bureau of Transportation Statistics Fleet mpg 1980 16.0 1985 17.5 1990 20.3 1991 21.2 1992 21.0 1993 20.6 1994 20.8 1995 21.1 1996 21.2 1997 21.5 1998 21.6 1999 21.4 2000 21.9 2001 22.1 PAVLEY FUEL EFFICIENCY (Passenger + Trucks) 2002 25.1 0.0% 2009 24.4 0.0% 2010 26.0 4.6% 2011 28.9 14.2% 2012 32.4 23.5% 2013 32.7 25.2% 2014 33.4 26.6% 2015 34.5 29.1% 2016 35.7 31.5% Pavley 1 and Federal CAFÉ 2017 37.7 35.2% 2018 40.1 39.3% 2019 41.6 41.5% 2020 42.5 42.8% Pavley 2 (Scoping Plan strategy) Source: CARB, February 25, 2008. Comparison of GHG Reductions for the United States and Canada under US CAFÉ Standards and CARB GHG Regulations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar Year:2020 Model Years:1976 to 2020 Title: OrangeCounty2020 Area: Orange SubArea: Average Program: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date:4/2/2010 15:09:52 SCEN VEH VEH POP VMT/1000 TRIPS ACCRUAL ODOMETER YEAR CLS TECH MYR (number) (mi/day) (per day) (mi/yr/veh) (mi/veh) 2020 1 NCAT 1976 23 0.27 87 4025 353601 204536 2020 1 CAT 1976 172 2 640 4025 353601 2020 1 DSL 1976 4 0.04 14 4025 353601 2020 1 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1976 4 0.06 14 5481 413426 2020 2 CAT 1976 28 0.44 104 5481 413426 2020 2 DSL 1976 1 0.02 4 5481 413426 2020 2 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1976 6 0.1 24 5481 413426 2020 3 CAT 1976 47 0.74 175 5481 413426 2020 3 DSL 1976 0 0 0 5481 413426 2020 3 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1976 83 1.58 309 6593 447213 2020 4 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 DSL 1976 0 0 0 6593 447213 2020 4 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1976 14 0.3 459 6938 477783 2020 5 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 DSL 1976 0 0 1 6938 477783 2020 5 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1976 0 0.01 16 6312 457350 2020 6 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 DSL 1976 1 0.01 8 6312 457350 2020 6 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1976 18 0.13 805 2468 393597 2020 7 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 DSL 1976 2 0.02 45 3158 485827 2020 7 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1976 1 0.01 35 3835 924536 2020 8 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 DSL 1976 2 0.03 12 3987 1480464 2020 8 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1976 1 0.01 34 2251 358947 2020 9 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 DSL 1976 0 0 6 2880 443050 2020 9 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1976 1 0.12 4 35708 1606860 2020 10 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 DSL 1976 25 2.77 101 35708 1606860 2020 10 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1976 8 0 16 212 56289 2020 11 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1976 2 0.09 9 12031 541395 2020 12 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 DSL 1976 0 0 0 12031 541395 2020 12 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1976 12 0.11 1 2810 153136 2020 13 CAT 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 DSL 1976 0 0 0 2810 153136 2020 13 ELEC 1976 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1977 25 0.29 93 4117 349576 205907 2020 1 CAT 1977 249 2.96 942 4117 349576 2020 1 DSL 1977 6 0.07 22 4117 349576 2020 1 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1977 6 0.09 21 5570 407945 2020 2 CAT 1977 40 0.65 153 5570 407945 2020 2 DSL 1977 1 0.02 5 5570 407945 2020 2 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1977 9 0.15 35 5570 407945 2020 3 CAT 1977 69 1.1 260 5570 407945 2020 3 DSL 1977 0 0 1 5570 407945 2020 3 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1977 148 2.84 559 6673 440620 2020 4 CAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 DSL 1977 0 0 0 6673 440620 2020 4 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1977 27 0.57 880 7026 470845 2020 5 DSL 1977 0 0 2 7026 470845 2020 5 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1977 2 0.03 55 6404 451038 2020 6 DSL 1977 0 0 0 6404 451038 2020 6 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1977 13 0.1 607 2468 391129 2020 7 DSL 1977 2 0.02 69 3158 482669 2020 7 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1977 1 0.01 36 3835 920701 2020 8 DSL 1977 2 0.03 12 3987 1476477 2020 8 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1977 1 0.01 56 2251 356696 2020 9 DSL 1977 0 0 6 2880 440170 2020 9 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1977 0 0 0 35708 1571152 2020 10 DSL 1977 0 0 0 35708 1571152 2020 10 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1977 7 0 15 225 56077 2020 11 CAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1977 3 0.11 12 12031 529364 2020 12 DSL 1977 3 0.09 10 12031 529364 2020 12 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1977 22 0.19 2 2824 150326 2020 13 DSL 1977 1 0.01 0 2824 150326 2020 13 ELEC 1977 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1978 21 0.25 80 4211 345459 214063 2020 1 CAT 1978 398 4.83 1528 4211 345459 2020 1 DSL 1978 9 0.11 36 4211 345459 2020 1 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1978 9 0.15 35 5661 402375 2020 2 CAT 1978 67 1.09 256 5661 402375 2020 2 DSL 1978 1 0.01 3 5661 402375 2020 2 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1978 13 0.2 48 5661 402375 2020 3 CAT 1978 92 1.5 352 5661 402375 2020 3 DSL 1978 1 0.02 4 5661 402375 2020 3 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1978 18 0.34 67 6754 433947 2020 4 CAT 1978 129 2.51 494 6754 433947 2020 4 DSL 1978 0 0 0 6754 433947 2020 4 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1978 38 0.83 1260 7115 463819 2020 5 DSL 1978 0 0 2 7115 463819 2020 5 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1978 2 0.03 55 6498 444634 2020 6 DSL 1978 0 0 2 6498 444634 2020 6 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1978 9 0.07 407 2468 388661 2020 7 DSL 1978 5 0.05 135 3158 479511 2020 7 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1978 0 0.01 20 3835 916866 2020 8 DSL 1978 4 0.05 19 3987 1472490 2020 8 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1978 1 0.01 57 2251 354445 2020 9 DSL 1978 2 0.02 63 2880 437290 2020 9 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1978 0 0 0 35708 1535444 2020 10 DSL 1978 0 0 0 35708 1535444 2020 10 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1978 11 0.01 23 241 55852 2020 11 CAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1978 4 0.15 16 12031 517333 2020 12 DSL 1978 4 0.14 15 12031 517333 2020 12 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1978 29 0.25 3 2839 147502 2020 13 DSL 1978 1 0 0 2839 147502 2020 13 ELEC 1978 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1979 46 0.57 179 4307 341248 215591 2020 1 CAT 1979 528 6.56 2060 4307 341248 2020 1 DSL 1979 24 0.29 92 4307 341248 2020 1 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1979 7 0.11 26 5754 396714 2020 2 CAT 1979 73 1.22 286 5754 396714 2020 2 DSL 1979 3 0.04 10 5754 396714 2020 2 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1979 11 0.18 43 5754 396714 2020 3 CAT 1979 121 2 470 5754 396714 2020 3 DSL 1979 3 0.04 10 5754 396714 2020 3 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1979 23 0.45 88 6839 427193 2020 4 CAT 1979 166 3.27 647 6839 427193 2020 4 DSL 1979 0 0 0 6839 427193 2020 4 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1979 46 1.02 1533 7209 456704 2020 5 DSL 1979 0 0 2 7209 456704 2020 5 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1979 2 0.05 81 6595 438136 2020 6 DSL 1979 1 0.01 9 6595 438136 2020 6 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1979 17 0.13 796 2468 386193 2020 7 DSL 1979 8 0.08 230 3158 476353 2020 7 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1979 2 0.02 79 3835 913031 2020 8 DSL 1979 5 0.06 26 3987 1468503 2020 8 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1979 1 0.01 68 2251 352194 2020 9 DSL 1979 1 0 14 2880 434410 2020 9 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1979 0 0 0 35708 1499736 2020 10 DSL 1979 0 0 0 35708 1499736 2020 10 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1979 14 0.01 27 256 55611 2020 11 CAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1979 3 0.1 11 12031 505302 2020 12 DSL 1979 6 0.22 24 12031 505302 2020 12 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1979 31 0.27 3 2854 144663 2020 13 DSL 1979 0 0 0 2854 144663 2020 13 ELEC 1979 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 212751 2020 1 CAT 1980 458 5.81 1812 4406 336941 2020 1 DSL 1980 26 0.33 102 4406 336941 2020 1 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1980 5 0.09 21 5850 390960 2020 2 CAT 1980 58 0.97 228 5850 390960 2020 2 DSL 1980 11 0.19 44 5850 390960 2020 2 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1980 9 0.15 35 5850 390960 2020 3 CAT 1980 97 1.63 383 5850 390960 2020 3 DSL 1980 1 0.02 5 5850 390960 2020 3 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1980 10 0.2 39 6925 420354 2020 4 CAT 1980 72 1.44 286 6925 420354 2020 4 DSL 1980 0 0 1 6925 420354 2020 4 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1980 40 0.89 1321 7303 449495 2020 5 DSL 1980 0 0.01 4 7303 449495 2020 5 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1980 2 0.03 54 6694 431541 2020 6 DSL 1980 1 0.02 12 6694 431541 2020 6 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1980 10 0.07 441 2468 383725 2020 7 DSL 1980 12 0.12 334 3158 473195 2020 7 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1980 2 0.02 81 3835 909196 2020 8 DSL 1980 5 0.06 25 3987 1464516 2020 8 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1980 1 0.01 46 2251 349943 2020 9 DSL 1980 3 0.03 95 2880 431530 2020 9 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1980 8 0.89 33 35708 1464028 2020 10 DSL 1980 3 0.33 12 35708 1464028 2020 10 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1980 14 0.01 28 275 55355 2020 11 CAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1980 5 0.17 18 12031 493271 2020 12 DSL 1980 5 0.18 19 12031 493271 2020 12 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1980 13 0.11 1 2869 141809 2020 13 DSL 1980 1 0.01 0 2869 141809 2020 13 ELEC 1980 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 202354 2020 1 CAT 1981 569 7.39 2288 4507 332535 2020 1 DSL 1981 46 0.6 185 4507 332535 2020 1 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1981 94 1.61 378 5948 385110 2020 2 DSL 1981 15 0.26 60 5948 385110 2020 2 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1981 164 2.81 660 5948 385110 2020 3 DSL 1981 1 0.01 3 5948 385110 2020 3 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1981 8 0.16 33 7013 413429 2020 4 CAT 1981 82 1.66 329 7013 413429 2020 4 DSL 1981 0 0 0 7013 413429 2020 4 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1981 52 1.17 1709 7399 442192 2020 5 DSL 1981 0 0 1 7399 442192 2020 5 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1981 2 0.04 61 6795 424847 2020 6 DSL 1981 0 0 0 6795 424847 2020 6 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1981 15 0.11 663 2468 381257 2020 7 DSL 1981 13 0.12 358 3158 470037 2020 7 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1981 1 0.01 43 3835 905361 2020 8 DSL 1981 5 0.07 28 3987 1460529 2020 8 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1981 0 0 11 2251 347692 2020 9 DSL 1981 4 0.04 123 2880 428650 2020 9 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1981 0 0 0 35708 1428320 2020 10 DSL 1981 2 0.22 8 35708 1428320 2020 10 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1981 15 0.01 30 294 55080 2020 11 CAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1981 6 0.23 25 12031 481240 2020 12 DSL 1981 2 0.09 9 12031 481240 2020 12 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1981 34 0.3 3 2885 138940 2020 13 DSL 1981 2 0.02 0 2885 138940 2020 13 ELEC 1981 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 203686 2020 1 CAT 1982 753 10 3071 4611 328028 2020 1 DSL 1982 61 0.81 248 4611 328028 2020 1 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1982 102 1.79 418 6047 379162 2020 2 DSL 1982 22 0.38 90 6047 379162 2020 2 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1982 191 3.33 778 6047 379162 2020 3 DSL 1982 4 0.06 15 6047 379162 2020 3 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1982 6 0.12 23 7103 406416 2020 4 CAT 1982 107 2.2 438 7103 406416 2020 4 DSL 1982 2 0.04 8 7103 406416 2020 4 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1982 47 1.07 1539 7499 434793 2020 5 DSL 1982 0 0 2 7499 434793 2020 5 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1982 2 0.04 60 6899 418052 2020 6 DSL 1982 2 0.04 24 6899 418052 2020 6 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1982 11 0.08 496 2468 378789 2020 7 DSL 1982 7 0.07 209 3158 466879 2020 7 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1982 1 0.01 42 3835 901526 2020 8 DSL 1982 4 0.05 20 3987 1456542 2020 8 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1982 1 0.01 56 2251 345441 2020 9 DSL 1982 4 0.03 105 2880 425770 2020 9 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1982 0 0 0 35708 1392612 2020 10 DSL 1982 0 0 0 35708 1392612 2020 10 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1982 20 0.02 40 312 54786 2020 11 CAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1982 3 0.09 10 12031 469209 2020 12 DSL 1982 3 0.13 14 12031 469209 2020 12 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1982 42 0.37 4 2901 136055 2020 13 DSL 1982 6 0.05 1 2901 136055 2020 13 ELEC 1982 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 197864 2020 1 CAT 1983 1078 14.65 4462 4716 323417 2020 1 DSL 1983 74 1.01 308 4716 323417 2020 1 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1983 136 2.41 562 6150 373115 2020 2 DSL 1983 20 0.35 81 6150 373115 2020 2 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1983 226 4.01 937 6150 373115 2020 3 DSL 1983 3 0.05 12 6150 373115 2020 3 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1983 159 3.31 660 7196 399313 2020 4 DSL 1983 3 0.06 12 7196 399313 2020 4 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1983 52 1.21 1721 7601 427294 2020 5 DSL 1983 1 0.01 8 7601 427294 2020 5 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1983 2 0.04 59 7006 411153 2020 6 DSL 1983 2 0.03 20 7006 411153 2020 6 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1983 7 0.05 307 2468 376321 2020 7 DSL 1983 10 0.09 268 3158 463721 2020 7 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1983 0 0.01 20 3835 897691 2020 8 DSL 1983 3 0.04 18 3987 1452555 2020 8 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1983 0 0 11 2251 343190 2020 9 DSL 1983 2 0.02 55 2880 422890 2020 9 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1983 0 0 0 35708 1356904 2020 10 DSL 1983 9 0.96 35 35708 1356904 2020 10 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1983 19 0.02 38 335 54474 2020 11 CAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1983 1 0.03 3 12031 457178 2020 12 DSL 1983 0 0 0 12031 457178 2020 12 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1983 62 0.55 6 2917 133154 2020 13 DSL 1983 7 0.06 1 2917 133154 2020 13 ELEC 1983 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 199185 2020 1 CAT 1984 1960 27.27 8232 4826 318701 2020 1 DSL 1984 68 0.94 284 4826 318701 2020 1 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1984 248 4.46 1039 6256 366965 2020 2 DSL 1984 25 0.45 106 6256 366965 2020 2 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1984 593 10.7 2492 6256 366965 2020 3 DSL 1984 2 0.04 10 6256 366965 2020 3 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1984 283 5.95 1188 7291 392117 2020 4 DSL 1984 3 0.06 12 7291 392117 2020 4 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1984 89 2.1 2950 7707 419693 2020 5 DSL 1984 1 0.02 12 7707 419693 2020 5 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1984 6 0.12 182 7115 404147 2020 6 DSL 1984 3 0.06 35 7115 404147 2020 6 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1984 32 0.24 1446 2468 373853 2020 7 DSL 1984 25 0.24 709 3158 460563 2020 7 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1984 2 0.02 76 3835 893856 2020 8 DSL 1984 8 0.1 40 3987 1448568 2020 8 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1984 0 0 22 2251 340939 2020 9 DSL 1984 3 0.03 84 2880 420010 2020 9 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1984 0 0 0 35708 1321196 2020 10 DSL 1984 1 0.11 4 35708 1321196 2020 10 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1984 18 0.02 36 358 54139 2020 11 CAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1984 8 0.28 30 12031 445147 2020 12 DSL 1984 5 0.18 20 12031 445147 2020 12 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1984 133 1.2 13 2934 130237 2020 13 DSL 1984 4 0.04 0 2934 130237 2020 13 ELEC 1984 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 200533 2020 1 CAT 1985 2756 39.21 11739 4937 313875 2020 1 DSL 1985 66 0.94 282 4937 313875 2020 1 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1985 331 6.08 1412 6364 360709 2020 2 DSL 1985 24 0.45 104 6364 360709 2020 2 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1985 924 16.95 3936 6364 360709 2020 3 DSL 1985 2 0.03 7 6364 360709 2020 3 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1985 393 8.38 1676 7389 384826 2020 4 DSL 1985 4 0.08 16 7389 384826 2020 4 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1985 147 3.51 4849 7814 411986 2020 5 DSL 1985 2 0.04 22 7814 411986 2020 5 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1985 7 0.16 240 7228 397032 2020 6 DSL 1985 9 0.2 115 7228 397032 2020 6 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1985 27 0.2 1222 2468 371385 2020 7 DSL 1985 30 0.29 846 3158 457405 2020 7 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1985 6 0.07 285 3835 890021 2020 8 DSL 1985 9 0.11 46 3987 1444581 2020 8 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1985 1 0.01 67 2251 338688 2020 9 DSL 1985 3 0.03 91 2880 417130 2020 9 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1985 4 0.43 16 35708 1285488 2020 10 DSL 1985 0 0 0 35708 1285488 2020 10 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1985 24 0.03 48 382 53781 2020 11 CAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1985 4 0.16 18 12031 433116 2020 12 DSL 1985 16 0.59 64 12031 433116 2020 12 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1985 118 1.07 12 2951 127303 2020 13 DSL 1985 3 0.03 0 2951 127303 2020 13 ELEC 1985 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 201927 2020 1 CAT 1986 3645 53.09 15746 5053 308938 2020 1 DSL 1986 17 0.25 76 5053 308938 2020 1 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1986 436 8.13 1882 6475 354345 2020 2 DSL 1986 26 0.49 113 6475 354345 2020 2 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1986 1545 28.83 6673 6475 354345 2020 3 DSL 1986 4 0.07 15 6475 354345 2020 3 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1986 511 11.02 2205 7490 377437 2020 4 DSL 1986 3 0.06 12 7490 377437 2020 4 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1986 167 4.04 5506 7925 404172 2020 5 DSL 1986 2 0.05 28 7925 404172 2020 5 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1986 11 0.25 369 7345 389804 2020 6 DSL 1986 13 0.29 164 7345 389804 2020 6 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1986 29 0.22 1336 2468 368917 2020 7 DSL 1986 29 0.28 816 3158 454247 2020 7 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1986 8 0.09 354 3835 886186 2020 8 DSL 1986 10 0.12 50 3987 1440594 2020 8 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1986 3 0.02 138 2251 336437 2020 9 DSL 1986 2 0.02 59 2880 414250 2020 9 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1986 2 0.22 8 35708 1249780 2020 10 DSL 1986 0 0 0 35708 1249780 2020 10 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1986 28 0.03 57 406 53399 2020 11 CAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1986 3 0.11 11 12031 421085 2020 12 DSL 1986 36 1.31 143 12031 421085 2020 12 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1986 121 1.1 12 2969 124352 2020 13 DSL 1986 6 0.06 1 2969 124352 2020 13 ELEC 1986 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 204458 2020 1 CAT 1987 4770 71.09 20889 5171 303885 2020 1 DSL 1987 52 0.78 228 5171 303885 2020 1 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1987 474 9.01 2077 6590 347870 2020 2 DSL 1987 16 0.31 72 6590 347870 2020 2 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1987 1684 31.99 7377 6590 347870 2020 3 DSL 1987 4 0.08 19 6590 347870 2020 3 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1987 588 12.87 2576 7593 369947 2020 4 DSL 1987 3 0.07 13 7593 369947 2020 4 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1987 155 3.82 5137 8038 396247 2020 5 DSL 1987 5 0.11 57 8038 396247 2020 5 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1987 15 0.33 480 7463 382459 2020 6 DSL 1987 10 0.23 128 7463 382459 2020 6 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1987 57 0.45 2584 2625 366449 2020 7 DSL 1987 68 0.66 1909 3158 451089 2020 7 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1987 8 0.09 368 3835 882351 2020 8 DSL 1987 12 0.17 60 4791 1436607 2020 8 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1987 1 0.01 47 2394 334186 2020 9 DSL 1987 2 0.01 46 2880 411370 2020 9 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1987 1 0.07 3 35708 1214072 2020 10 DSL 1987 0 0 0 35708 1214072 2020 10 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1987 23 0.03 46 433 52993 2020 11 CAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1987 18 0.67 73 12031 409054 2020 12 DSL 1987 55 2.04 221 12031 409054 2020 12 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1987 136 1.24 14 2987 121383 2020 13 DSL 1987 3 0.03 0 2987 121383 2020 13 ELEC 1987 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 207357 2020 1 CAT 1988 5426 82.78 24254 5293 298714 2020 1 DSL 1988 3 0.05 14 5293 298714 2020 1 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1988 506 9.79 2263 6708 341280 2020 2 DSL 1988 13 0.25 58 6708 341280 2020 2 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1988 1891 36.55 8450 6708 341280 2020 3 DSL 1988 4 0.08 18 6708 341280 2020 3 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1988 732 16.25 3273 7700 362354 2020 4 DSL 1988 2 0.05 10 7700 362354 2020 4 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1988 201 5.03 6659 8155 388209 2020 5 DSL 1988 7 0.17 87 8155 388209 2020 5 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1988 19 0.44 624 7586 374996 2020 6 DSL 1988 14 0.33 179 7586 374996 2020 6 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1988 27 0.23 1211 2820 363824 2020 7 DSL 1988 63 0.61 1757 3158 447931 2020 7 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1988 10 0.11 445 3835 878516 2020 8 DSL 1988 15 0.26 75 5838 1431816 2020 8 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1988 2 0.01 83 2572 331792 2020 9 DSL 1988 5 0.04 129 2880 408490 2020 9 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1988 3 0.34 12 35708 1178364 2020 10 DSL 1988 10 1.07 39 35708 1178364 2020 10 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1988 17 0.02 34 464 52560 2020 11 CAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1988 13 0.48 53 12031 397023 2020 12 DSL 1988 53 1.95 212 12031 397023 2020 12 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1988 175 1.61 17 3006 118396 2020 13 DSL 1988 3 0.03 0 3006 118396 2020 13 ELEC 1988 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 211533 2020 1 CAT 1989 6522 101.86 29932 5419 293421 2020 1 DSL 1989 1 0.02 7 5419 293421 2020 1 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1989 550 10.82 2524 6830 334572 2020 2 DSL 1989 21 0.41 96 6830 334572 2020 2 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1989 2527 49.75 11600 6830 334572 2020 3 DSL 1989 3 0.07 16 6830 334572 2020 3 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1989 841 18.93 3861 7809 354654 2020 4 DSL 1989 1 0.03 6 7809 354654 2020 4 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1989 329 8.34 10883 8276 380054 2020 5 DSL 1989 4 0.09 45 8276 380054 2020 5 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1989 35 0.82 1144 7713 367410 2020 6 DSL 1989 35 0.82 438 7713 367410 2020 6 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1989 53 0.5 2439 3051 361004 2020 7 DSL 1989 85 0.82 2393 3158 444773 2020 7 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1989 11 0.16 484 4792 874681 2020 8 DSL 1989 22 0.48 111 7091 1425978 2020 8 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1989 2 0.02 83 2782 329220 2020 9 DSL 1989 4 0.03 108 2880 405610 2020 9 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1989 23 2.5 91 35708 1142656 2020 10 DSL 1989 58 6.33 232 35708 1142656 2020 10 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1989 21 0.03 42 495 52096 2020 11 CAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1989 6 0.23 25 12031 384992 2020 12 DSL 1989 99 3.66 397 12031 384992 2020 12 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1989 221 2.05 22 3026 115390 2020 13 DSL 1989 7 0.07 1 3026 115390 2020 13 ELEC 1989 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 217377 2020 1 CAT 1990 6855 109.63 32487 5549 288002 2020 1 DSL 1990 5 0.07 22 5549 288002 2020 1 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1990 545 10.93 2584 6955 327742 2020 2 DSL 1990 18 0.37 87 6955 327742 2020 2 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1990 2393 47.97 11342 6955 327742 2020 3 DSL 1990 6 0.13 30 6955 327742 2020 3 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1990 804 18.35 3808 7923 346845 2020 4 DSL 1990 1 0.03 6 7923 346845 2020 4 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1990 260 6.69 8607 8401 371778 2020 5 DSL 1990 4 0.1 51 8401 371778 2020 5 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1990 31 0.74 1014 7844 359697 2020 6 DSL 1990 46 1.1 577 7844 359697 2020 6 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1990 44 0.44 1990 3315 357953 2020 7 DSL 1990 114 1.37 3206 3914 441615 2020 7 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1990 10 0.18 476 5697 869889 2020 8 DSL 1990 23 0.61 119 8508 1418887 2020 8 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1990 5 0.04 209 3023 326438 2020 9 DSL 1990 5 0.06 143 3569 402730 2020 9 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1990 9 0.99 36 35708 1106948 2020 10 DSL 1990 45 4.88 179 35708 1106948 2020 10 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1990 27 0.04 54 527 51601 2020 11 CAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1990 5 0.17 18 12031 372961 2020 12 DSL 1990 126 4.66 506 12031 372961 2020 12 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1990 214 1.99 21 3046 112364 2020 13 DSL 1990 7 0.07 1 3046 112364 2020 13 ELEC 1990 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 223217 2020 1 CAT 1991 6960 114.01 34103 5683 282453 2020 1 DSL 1991 10 0.16 47 5683 282453 2020 1 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1991 684 13.96 3350 7084 320787 2020 2 DSL 1991 15 0.3 73 7084 320787 2020 2 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1991 3250 66.35 15923 7084 320787 2020 3 DSL 1991 5 0.11 26 7084 320787 2020 3 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1991 815 18.89 3994 8040 338922 2020 4 DSL 1991 3 0.06 13 8040 338922 2020 4 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1991 199 5.19 6567 8530 363377 2020 5 DSL 1991 2 0.06 31 8530 363377 2020 5 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1991 20 0.49 666 7977 351853 2020 6 DSL 1991 17 0.41 210 7977 351853 2020 6 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1991 20 0.23 934 3613 354638 2020 7 DSL 1991 112 1.57 3147 4569 437701 2020 7 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1991 5 0.11 247 6557 864192 2020 8 DSL 1991 19 0.6 98 10043 1410379 2020 8 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1991 2 0.02 74 3295 323415 2020 9 DSL 1991 3 0.04 94 4167 399161 2020 9 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1991 2 0.16 6 35708 1071240 2020 10 DSL 1991 1 0.1 4 35708 1071240 2020 10 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1991 33 0.05 65 565 51074 2020 11 CAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1991 9 0.34 37 12031 360930 2020 12 DSL 1991 102 3.75 408 12031 360930 2020 12 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1991 182 1.71 18 3067 109318 2020 13 DSL 1991 9 0.08 1 3067 109318 2020 13 ELEC 1991 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 229102 2020 1 CAT 1992 6449 108.22 32630 5822 276770 2020 1 DSL 1992 6 0.1 32 5822 276770 2020 1 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1992 624 12.98 3157 7219 313703 2020 2 DSL 1992 17 0.36 87 7219 313703 2020 2 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1992 3098 64.47 15676 7219 313703 2020 3 DSL 1992 3 0.07 16 7219 313703 2020 3 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1992 981 23.07 4963 8161 330882 2020 4 DSL 1992 1 0.03 8 8161 330882 2020 4 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1992 197 5.23 6519 8663 354847 2020 5 DSL 1992 1 0.03 14 8663 354847 2020 5 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1992 22 0.54 722 8118 343876 2020 6 DSL 1992 38 0.94 477 8118 343876 2020 6 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1992 23 0.28 1053 3943 351025 2020 7 DSL 1992 62 0.97 1730 5154 433132 2020 7 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1992 11 0.25 501 7393 857635 2020 8 DSL 1992 19 0.68 97 11655 1400336 2020 8 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1992 2 0.02 103 3596 320120 2020 9 DSL 1992 2 0.03 53 4700 394994 2020 9 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1992 1 0.11 4 35708 1035532 2020 10 DSL 1992 1 0.1 4 35708 1035532 2020 10 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1992 35 0.06 71 603 50509 2020 11 CAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1992 5 0.19 20 12031 348899 2020 12 DSL 1992 56 2.04 222 12031 348899 2020 12 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1992 182 1.72 18 3088 106251 2020 13 DSL 1992 21 0.2 2 3088 106251 2020 13 ELEC 1992 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 235022 2020 1 CAT 1993 7325 125.93 38231 5965 270948 2020 1 DSL 1993 6 0.1 30 5965 270948 2020 1 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1993 903 19.14 4711 7357 306484 2020 2 DSL 1993 26 0.55 135 7357 306484 2020 2 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1993 4342 92.07 22663 7357 306484 2020 3 DSL 1993 5 0.1 25 7357 306484 2020 3 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1993 1353 32.32 7064 8286 322721 2020 4 DSL 1993 1 0.03 7 8286 322721 2020 4 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1993 213 5.74 7041 8801 346184 2020 5 DSL 1993 1 0.03 14 8801 346184 2020 5 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1993 41 1.04 1359 8261 335758 2020 6 DSL 1993 40 1.01 502 8261 335758 2020 6 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1993 20 0.27 925 4306 347082 2020 7 DSL 1993 73 1.28 2058 5687 427978 2020 7 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1993 8 0.2 357 8213 850242 2020 8 DSL 1993 28 1.16 143 13308 1388681 2020 8 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1993 2 0.03 104 3927 316524 2020 9 DSL 1993 3 0.05 90 5186 390294 2020 9 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1993 2 0.24 9 35708 999824 2020 10 DSL 1993 0 0 0 35708 999824 2020 10 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1993 51 0.09 102 643 49906 2020 11 CAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 DSL 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1993 4 0.16 17 12031 336868 2020 12 DSL 1993 85 3.13 340 12031 336868 2020 12 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1993 144 1.37 14 3110 103163 2020 13 DSL 1993 30 0.29 3 3110 103163 2020 13 ELEC 1993 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 241709 2020 1 CAT 1994 8099 142.72 43408 6114 264983 2020 1 DSL 1994 6 0.1 31 6114 264983 2020 1 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1994 1032 22.31 5531 7501 299127 2020 2 DSL 1994 27 0.59 145 7501 299127 2020 2 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1994 4811 104 25782 7501 299127 2020 3 DSL 1994 6 0.12 30 7501 299127 2020 3 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1994 2073 50.28 11110 8416 314435 2020 4 DSL 1994 5 0.12 27 8416 314435 2020 4 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1994 237 6.5 7850 8943 337383 2020 5 DSL 1994 2 0.05 21 8943 337383 2020 5 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1994 46 1.19 1530 8411 327497 2020 6 DSL 1994 46 1.18 576 8411 327497 2020 6 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1994 18 0.26 832 4699 342776 2020 7 DSL 1994 89 1.68 2482 6188 422291 2020 7 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1994 4 0.11 188 9033 842029 2020 8 DSL 1994 40 1.85 204 14971 1375373 2020 8 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1994 4 0.05 180 4285 312597 2020 9 DSL 1994 0 0.01 9 5643 385108 2020 9 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1994 5 0.56 21 35708 964116 2020 10 DSL 1994 2 0.21 8 35708 964116 2020 10 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1994 58 0.12 117 687 49263 2020 11 CAT 1994 1 0 2 687 49263 2020 11 DSL 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1994 2 0.07 7 12031 324837 2020 12 DSL 1994 123 4.53 492 12031 324837 2020 12 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1994 190 1.82 19 3133 100053 2020 13 DSL 1994 38 0.37 4 3133 100053 2020 13 ELEC 1994 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 247861 2020 1 CAT 1995 10059 181.73 55120 6268 258869 2020 1 DSL 1995 34 0.62 188 6268 258869 2020 1 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1995 1194 26.33 6543 7651 291626 2020 2 DSL 1995 61 1.35 336 7651 291626 2020 2 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1995 5642 124.41 30915 7651 291626 2020 3 DSL 1995 16 0.35 86 7651 291626 2020 3 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1995 2782 68.55 15242 8551 306019 2020 4 DSL 1995 7 0.18 39 8551 306019 2020 4 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1995 401 11.16 13258 9091 328440 2020 5 DSL 1995 5 0.13 58 9091 328440 2020 5 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1995 67 1.76 2225 8566 319086 2020 6 DSL 1995 78 2.04 977 8566 319086 2020 6 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1995 43 0.67 1941 5121 338077 2020 7 DSL 1995 216 4.41 6053 6676 416103 2020 7 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1995 6 0.19 291 9866 832996 2020 8 DSL 1995 58 2.94 293 16628 1360402 2020 8 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1995 8 0.12 383 4670 308312 2020 9 DSL 1995 4 0.08 114 6088 379465 2020 9 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1995 2 0.25 9 35708 928408 2020 10 DSL 1995 48 5.21 191 35708 928408 2020 10 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1995 51 0.11 102 732 48576 2020 11 CAT 1995 17 0.04 34 732 48576 2020 11 DSL 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1995 4 0.13 14 12031 312806 2020 12 DSL 1995 77 2.83 307 12031 312806 2020 12 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1995 193 1.87 19 3157 96920 2020 13 DSL 1995 36 0.35 4 3157 96920 2020 13 ELEC 1995 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 254158 2020 1 CAT 1996 9409 174.34 52589 6429 252601 2020 1 DSL 1996 20 0.37 112 6429 252601 2020 1 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1996 1457 32.77 8142 7805 283975 2020 2 DSL 1996 74 1.67 415 7805 283975 2020 2 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1996 5805 130.58 32444 7805 283975 2020 3 DSL 1996 9 0.2 49 7805 283975 2020 3 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1996 2491 62.38 13921 8690 297468 2020 4 DSL 1996 7 0.19 41 8690 297468 2020 4 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1996 347 9.82 11480 9245 319349 2020 5 DSL 1996 3 0.08 33 9245 319349 2020 5 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1996 61 1.63 2024 8727 310520 2020 6 DSL 1996 50 1.33 625 8727 310520 2020 6 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1996 28 0.48 1277 5573 332956 2020 7 DSL 1996 226 4.95 6326 7165 409427 2020 7 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1996 9 0.31 429 10721 823130 2020 8 DSL 1996 62 3.49 315 18271 1343774 2020 8 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1996 6 0.09 264 5082 303642 2020 9 DSL 1996 4 0.08 112 6534 373377 2020 9 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1996 1 0.06 2 35708 892700 2020 10 DSL 1996 0 0 0 35708 892700 2020 10 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1996 79 0.18 158 784 47844 2020 11 CAT 1996 22 0.05 45 784 47844 2020 11 DSL 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1996 0 0 0 12031 300775 2020 12 DSL 1996 36 1.32 144 12031 300775 2020 12 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1996 182 1.78 18 3182 93763 2020 13 DSL 1996 31 0.3 3 3182 93763 2020 13 ELEC 1996 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 260654 2020 1 CAT 1997 12399 235.69 70421 6595 246172 2020 1 DSL 1997 23 0.43 130 6595 246172 2020 1 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1997 1638 37.62 9303 7968 276170 2020 2 DSL 1997 107 2.45 605 7968 276170 2020 2 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1997 7418 170.36 42130 7968 276170 2020 3 DSL 1997 15 0.33 83 7968 276170 2020 3 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1997 4583 116.73 26032 8836 288778 2020 4 DSL 1997 8 0.2 45 8836 288778 2020 4 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1997 483 13.91 15974 9406 310104 2020 5 DSL 1997 4 0.12 55 9406 310104 2020 5 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1997 103 2.82 3422 8895 301793 2020 6 DSL 1997 70 1.92 887 8895 301793 2020 6 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1997 53 0.97 2401 6052 327383 2020 7 DSL 1997 251 5.88 7026 7669 402262 2020 7 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1997 14 0.51 649 11616 812409 2020 8 DSL 1997 66 4 332 19902 1325503 2020 8 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1997 6 0.11 290 5519 298560 2020 9 DSL 1997 5 0.1 134 6994 366843 2020 9 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1997 12 1.36 50 35708 856992 2020 10 DSL 1997 128 13.98 512 35708 856992 2020 10 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1997 92 0.22 184 836 47060 2020 11 CAT 1997 26 0.06 52 836 47060 2020 11 DSL 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1997 1 0.04 4 12031 288744 2020 12 DSL 1997 106 3.9 424 12031 288744 2020 12 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1997 229 2.24 23 3208 90581 2020 13 DSL 1997 39 0.39 4 3208 90581 2020 13 ELEC 1997 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 267401 2020 1 CAT 1998 14767 288.15 84756 6770 239577 2020 1 DSL 1998 41 0.79 234 6770 239577 2020 1 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1998 2782 65.24 15970 8135 268202 2020 2 DSL 1998 57 1.33 327 8135 268202 2020 2 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1998 9979 233.97 57274 8135 268202 2020 3 DSL 1998 14 0.33 80 8135 268202 2020 3 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1998 4572 118.45 26243 8988 279942 2020 4 DSL 1998 15 0.38 85 8988 279942 2020 4 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1998 409 11.97 13512 9573 300698 2020 5 DSL 1998 2 0.06 25 9573 300698 2020 5 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1998 86 2.4 2856 9070 292898 2020 6 DSL 1998 58 1.6 725 9070 292898 2020 6 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1998 41 0.83 1886 6557 321331 2020 7 DSL 1998 227 5.7 6368 8202 394593 2020 7 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1998 24 0.92 1093 12564 800793 2020 8 DSL 1998 75 4.92 378 21542 1305601 2020 8 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1998 11 0.2 505 5980 293041 2020 9 DSL 1998 17 0.4 487 7480 359849 2020 9 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1998 1 0.12 4 35708 821284 2020 10 DSL 1998 53 5.83 213 35708 821284 2020 10 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1998 112 0.29 224 893 46224 2020 11 CAT 1998 32 0.08 63 893 46224 2020 11 DSL 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1998 2 0.08 8 12031 276713 2020 12 DSL 1998 92 3.38 367 12031 276713 2020 12 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1998 208 2.06 21 3235 87373 2020 13 DSL 1998 50 0.5 5 3235 87373 2020 13 ELEC 1998 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 274471 2020 1 CAT 1999 17971 360.09 104403 6952 232807 2020 1 DSL 1999 49 0.97 282 6952 232807 2020 1 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 1999 5914 141.67 34358 8311 260067 2020 2 DSL 1999 253 6.06 1469 8311 260067 2020 2 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 1999 12703 304.29 73797 8311 260067 2020 3 DSL 1999 17 0.4 96 8311 260067 2020 3 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 1999 4394 115.83 25524 9147 270954 2020 4 DSL 1999 16 0.42 92 9147 270954 2020 4 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 1999 247 7.38 8183 9747 291125 2020 5 DSL 1999 7 0.21 88 9747 291125 2020 5 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 1999 287 8.14 9501 9253 283828 2020 6 DSL 1999 127 3.59 1595 9253 283828 2020 6 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 1999 103 2.24 4723 7090 314774 2020 7 DSL 1999 486 13.04 13618 8773 386391 2020 7 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 1999 43 1.77 1941 13574 788229 2020 8 DSL 1999 104 7.4 527 23215 1284059 2020 8 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 1999 27 0.53 1232 6466 287061 2020 9 DSL 1999 20 0.5 567 8001 352369 2020 9 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 1999 2 0.18 7 35708 785576 2020 10 DSL 1999 48 5.21 191 35708 785576 2020 10 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 1999 164 0.45 329 953 45331 2020 11 CAT 1999 46 0.13 93 953 45331 2020 11 DSL 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 1999 18 0.65 71 12031 264682 2020 12 DSL 1999 79 2.92 317 12031 264682 2020 12 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 1999 320 3.2 32 3263 84138 2020 13 DSL 1999 77 0.77 8 3263 84138 2020 13 ELEC 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 281929 2020 1 CAT 2000 24548 505.24 144081 7141 225855 2020 1 DSL 2000 18 0.37 106 7141 225855 2020 1 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2000 7466 182.81 43823 8495 251756 2020 2 DSL 2000 258 6.33 1517 8495 251756 2020 2 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2000 15994 391.59 93873 8495 251756 2020 3 DSL 2000 23 0.56 135 8495 251756 2020 3 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2000 5496 147.52 32258 9313 261807 2020 4 DSL 2000 50 1.35 294 9313 261807 2020 4 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2000 315 9.57 10415 9930 281378 2020 5 DSL 2000 10 0.31 128 9930 281378 2020 5 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2000 298 8.61 9852 9443 274575 2020 6 DSL 2000 141 4.06 1769 9443 274575 2020 6 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2000 116 2.71 5278 7647 307684 2020 7 DSL 2000 613 17.61 17182 9389 377618 2020 7 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2000 34 1.53 1552 14665 774655 2020 8 DSL 2000 122 9.33 618 24962 1260844 2020 8 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2000 21 0.45 971 6974 280595 2020 9 DSL 2000 54 1.4 1500 8562 344368 2020 9 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2000 1 0.13 5 35708 749868 2020 10 DSL 2000 25 2.74 100 35708 749868 2020 10 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2000 265 0.78 530 1017 44378 2020 11 CAT 2000 75 0.22 149 1017 44378 2020 11 DSL 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2000 8 0.3 33 12031 252651 2020 12 DSL 2000 103 3.81 413 12031 252651 2020 12 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2000 343 3.46 34 3292 80875 2020 13 DSL 2000 115 1.16 12 3292 80875 2020 13 ELEC 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 289872 2020 1 CAT 2001 27795 588.1 164254 7341 218714 2020 1 DSL 2001 29 0.6 169 7341 218714 2020 1 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2001 9318 233.32 55062 8688 243261 2020 2 DSL 2001 369 9.24 2180 8688 243261 2020 2 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2001 15581 390.16 92077 8688 243261 2020 3 DSL 2001 41 1.04 245 8688 243261 2020 3 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2001 8471 231.62 50057 9487 252494 2020 4 DSL 2001 72 1.98 427 9487 252494 2020 4 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2001 378 11.72 12511 10121 271448 2020 5 DSL 2001 22 0.67 274 10121 271448 2020 5 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2001 92 2.7 3030 9644 265132 2020 6 DSL 2001 87 2.57 1097 9644 265132 2020 6 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2001 121 3.05 5524 8230 300037 2020 7 DSL 2001 609 18.75 17079 10055 368229 2020 7 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2001 35 1.69 1592 15847 759990 2020 8 DSL 2001 100 8.19 505 26831 1235882 2020 8 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2001 45 1.03 2057 7505 273621 2020 9 DSL 2001 32 0.89 885 9170 335806 2020 9 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2001 2 0.19 7 35708 714160 2020 10 DSL 2001 92 10.07 369 35708 714160 2020 10 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2001 365 1.14 731 1086 43361 2020 11 CAT 2001 103 0.32 206 1086 43361 2020 11 DSL 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2001 58 2.13 231 12031 240620 2020 12 DSL 2001 91 3.34 363 12031 240620 2020 12 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2001 245 2.49 24 3323 77583 2020 13 DSL 2001 94 0.95 9 3323 77583 2020 13 ELEC 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 298373 2020 1 CAT 2002 32870 715.37 195559 7551 211373 2020 1 DSL 2002 74 1.62 442 7551 211373 2020 1 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2002 5665 145.17 33703 8891 234573 2020 2 DSL 2002 343 8.79 2040 8891 234573 2020 2 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2002 22291 571.22 132619 8891 234573 2020 3 DSL 2002 26 0.67 155 8891 234573 2020 3 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2002 10068 280.61 59900 9670 243007 2020 4 DSL 2002 88 2.46 526 9670 243007 2020 4 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2002 685 21.63 22637 10323 261327 2020 5 DSL 2002 116 3.67 1460 10323 261327 2020 5 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2002 156 4.72 5170 9855 255488 2020 6 DSL 2002 156 4.69 1957 9855 255488 2020 6 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2002 79 2.14 3614 8834 291807 2020 7 DSL 2002 398 13.13 11166 10776 358174 2020 7 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2002 26 1.37 1197 17132 744143 2020 8 DSL 2002 73 6.49 372 28878 1209051 2020 8 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2002 39 0.97 1804 8056 266116 2020 9 DSL 2002 30 0.89 833 9827 326636 2020 9 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2002 2 0.26 10 35708 678452 2020 10 DSL 2002 38 4.18 153 35708 678452 2020 10 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2002 1017 3.4 2034 1159 42275 2020 11 CAT 2002 287 0.96 574 1159 42275 2020 11 DSL 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2002 25 0.9 98 12031 228589 2020 12 DSL 2002 91 3.34 363 12031 228589 2020 12 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2002 300 3.09 30 3356 74260 2020 13 DSL 2002 122 1.25 12 3356 74260 2020 13 ELEC 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 324403 2020 1 CAT 2003 40796 913.84 244751 7772 203822 2020 1 DSL 2003 77 1.73 464 7772 203822 2020 1 ELEC 2003 8 0.18 48 7772 203822 2020 2 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2003 5874 154.13 35240 9104 225682 2020 2 DSL 2003 391 10.25 2344 9104 225682 2020 2 ELEC 2003 3 0.08 19 9104 225682 2020 3 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2003 25565 670.81 153375 9104 225682 2020 3 DSL 2003 33 0.86 197 9104 225682 2020 3 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2003 13221 375.84 79320 9863 233337 2020 4 DSL 2003 123 3.49 737 9863 233337 2020 4 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2003 1191 38.41 39387 10536 251004 2020 5 DSL 2003 279 9.01 3513 10536 251004 2020 5 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2003 158 4.88 5233 10077 245633 2020 6 DSL 2003 159 4.9 1999 10077 245633 2020 6 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2003 92 2.65 4183 9461 282973 2020 7 DSL 2003 351 12.4 9833 11554 347398 2020 7 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2003 9 0.49 391 18538 727011 2020 8 DSL 2003 101 9.61 510 31161 1180173 2020 8 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2003 51 1.33 2308 8628 258060 2020 9 DSL 2003 22 0.72 630 10537 316809 2020 9 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2003 2 0.21 8 35708 642744 2020 10 DSL 2003 57 6.27 229 35708 642744 2020 10 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2003 1234 4.41 2468 1239 41116 2020 11 CAT 2003 348 1.24 696 1239 41116 2020 11 DSL 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2003 5 0.2 21 12031 216558 2020 12 DSL 2003 83 3.04 331 12031 216558 2020 12 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2003 400 4.15 40 3390 70904 2020 13 DSL 2003 152 1.57 15 3390 70904 2020 13 ELEC 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 298011 2020 1 CAT 2004 42797 987.53 258467 8006 196050 2020 1 DSL 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2004 2 0.05 12 8006 196050 2020 2 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2004 5750 154.64 34728 9331 216578 2020 2 DSL 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 9331 216578 2020 3 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2004 28355 762.56 171245 9331 216578 2020 3 DSL 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2004 15858 460.12 95772 10067 223474 2020 4 DSL 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2004 878 28.91 29024 10759 240468 2020 5 DSL 2004 972 32.01 12228 10759 240468 2020 5 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2004 252 7.95 8328 10312 235556 2020 6 DSL 2004 213 6.73 2683 10312 235556 2020 6 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2004 99 3.08 4541 10108 273512 2020 7 DSL 2004 569 21.59 15966 12386 335844 2020 7 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2004 12 0.71 525 20073 708473 2020 8 DSL 2004 91 9.36 458 33743 1149012 2020 8 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2004 83 2.35 3797 9218 249432 2020 9 DSL 2004 9 0.32 258 11295 306272 2020 9 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2004 0 0 0 35708 607036 2020 10 DSL 2004 87 9.53 349 35708 607036 2020 10 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2004 945 3.6 1891 1322 39877 2020 11 CAT 2004 208 0.79 415 1322 39877 2020 11 DSL 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2004 39 1.44 156 12031 204527 2020 12 DSL 2004 7 0.26 28 12031 204527 2020 12 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2004 512 5.37 51 3426 67514 2020 13 DSL 2004 182 1.91 18 3426 67514 2020 13 ELEC 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 308262 2020 1 CAT 2005 48470 1153.09 294671 8254 188044 2020 1 DSL 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2005 19 0.45 114 8254 188044 2020 2 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2005 6350 175.17 38605 9571 207247 2020 2 DSL 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 9571 207247 2020 3 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2005 25701 708.98 156247 9571 207247 2020 3 DSL 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2005 12024 356.39 73098 10284 213407 2020 4 DSL 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2005 802 26.99 26519 10997 229709 2020 5 DSL 2005 1087 36.58 13672 10997 229709 2020 5 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2005 175 5.67 5796 10561 225244 2020 6 DSL 2005 274 8.85 3445 10561 225244 2020 6 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2005 79 2.62 3629 10776 263404 2020 7 DSL 2005 824 33.49 23116 13273 323458 2020 7 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2005 24 1.61 1104 21753 688400 2020 8 DSL 2005 135 15.17 684 36682 1115269 2020 8 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2005 23 0.69 1050 9827 240214 2020 9 DSL 2005 11 0.39 297 12104 294977 2020 9 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2005 3 0.3 11 35708 571328 2020 10 DSL 2005 11 1.15 42 35708 571328 2020 10 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2005 1283 5.21 2565 1410 38555 2020 11 CAT 2005 282 1.14 563 1410 38555 2020 11 DSL 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2005 0 0 0 12031 192496 2020 12 DSL 2005 1 0.05 6 12031 192496 2020 12 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2005 391 4.15 39 3464 64088 2020 13 DSL 2005 195 2.07 20 3464 64088 2020 13 ELEC 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 319382 2020 1 CAT 2006 48305 1185.92 296081 8518 179790 2020 1 DSL 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2006 243 5.96 1488 8518 179790 2020 2 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2006 6207 175.78 38047 9825 197676 2020 2 DSL 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2006 31 0.88 191 9825 197676 2020 3 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2006 25747 729.08 157810 9825 197676 2020 3 DSL 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2006 12150 368.18 74471 10514 203123 2020 4 DSL 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2006 1802 62.06 59594 11251 218712 2020 5 DSL 2006 400 13.77 5032 11251 218712 2020 5 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2006 293 9.69 9673 10826 214683 2020 6 DSL 2006 205 6.78 2574 10826 214683 2020 6 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2006 215 7.55 9825 11463 252628 2020 7 DSL 2006 783 34.04 21948 14208 310185 2020 7 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2006 2 0.17 105 23591 666647 2020 8 DSL 2006 172 21.11 872 40028 1078587 2020 8 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2006 8 0.25 352 10454 230387 2020 9 DSL 2006 28 1.11 786 12957 282873 2020 9 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2006 7 0.82 30 35708 535620 2020 10 DSL 2006 6 0.65 24 35708 535620 2020 10 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2006 1349 5.86 2697 1507 37145 2020 11 CAT 2006 296 1.29 592 1507 37145 2020 11 DSL 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2006 0 0.01 1 12031 180465 2020 12 DSL 2006 1 0.05 5 12031 180465 2020 12 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2006 574 6.16 57 3505 60624 2020 13 DSL 2006 58 0.62 6 3505 60624 2020 13 ELEC 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 331430 2020 1 CAT 2007 47596 1207.2 293640 8800 171272 2020 1 DSL 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2007 287 7.29 1772 8800 171272 2020 2 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2007 6047 176.01 37309 10098 187851 2020 2 DSL 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2007 37 1.06 225 10098 187851 2020 3 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2007 25594 744.9 157900 10098 187851 2020 3 DSL 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2007 12174 377.56 75109 10760 192609 2020 4 DSL 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2007 2059 72.61 68091 11521 207461 2020 5 DSL 2007 460 16.22 5787 11521 207461 2020 5 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2007 313 10.65 10359 11110 203857 2020 6 DSL 2007 215 7.3 2701 11110 203857 2020 6 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2007 234 8.73 10703 12169 241165 2020 7 DSL 2007 851 39.54 23856 15184 295977 2020 7 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2007 2 0.18 107 25600 643056 2020 8 DSL 2007 179 24.05 907 43824 1038559 2020 8 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2007 8 0.28 373 11098 219933 2020 9 DSL 2007 30 1.26 831 13847 269916 2020 9 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2007 8 0.91 33 35708 499912 2020 10 DSL 2007 6 0.71 26 35708 499912 2020 10 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2007 1429 6.62 2857 1608 35638 2020 11 CAT 2007 314 1.45 627 1608 35638 2020 11 DSL 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2007 0 0.01 1 12031 168434 2020 12 DSL 2007 1 0.05 6 12031 168434 2020 12 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2007 650 7.06 65 3549 57119 2020 13 DSL 2007 66 0.72 7 3549 57119 2020 13 ELEC 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 344455 2020 1 CAT 2008 52737 1383.65 327994 9103 162472 2020 1 DSL 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2008 318 8.35 1980 9103 162472 2020 2 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2008 5847 175.11 36365 10391 177753 2020 2 DSL 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2008 35 1.06 220 10391 177753 2020 3 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2008 24656 738.42 153345 10391 177753 2020 3 DSL 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2008 11763 373.79 73160 11025 181849 2020 4 DSL 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2008 2037 73.65 67358 11813 195940 2020 5 DSL 2008 458 16.55 5759 11813 195940 2020 5 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2008 295 10.31 9756 11415 192747 2020 6 DSL 2008 204 7.11 2560 11415 192747 2020 6 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2008 228 9 10411 12892 228996 2020 7 DSL 2008 825 40.89 23129 16194 280793 2020 7 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2008 3 0.22 120 27792 617456 2020 8 DSL 2008 201 29.58 1017 48088 994735 2020 8 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2008 9 0.31 399 11757 208835 2020 9 DSL 2008 32 1.43 886 14768 256069 2020 9 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2008 10 1.04 38 35708 464204 2020 10 DSL 2008 7 0.78 28 35708 464204 2020 10 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2008 705 3.49 1410 1717 34030 2020 11 CAT 2008 1445 7.15 2890 1717 34030 2020 11 DSL 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2008 0 0.01 1 12031 156403 2020 12 DSL 2008 2 0.06 6 12031 156403 2020 12 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2008 738 8.12 74 3596 53570 2020 13 DSL 2008 74 0.81 7 3596 53570 2020 13 ELEC 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 358471 2020 1 CAT 2009 57260 1556.27 358410 9430 153369 2020 1 DSL 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2009 520 14.13 3255 9430 153369 2020 2 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2009 6455 199.19 40402 10707 167362 2020 2 DSL 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2009 59 1.81 367 10707 167362 2020 3 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2009 23282 718.47 145729 10707 167362 2020 3 DSL 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2009 11161 363.85 69860 11311 170824 2020 4 DSL 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2009 1983 73.62 65580 12127 184127 2020 5 DSL 2009 451 16.73 5670 12127 184127 2020 5 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2009 319 11.47 10554 11744 181332 2020 6 DSL 2009 223 8.03 2811 11744 181332 2020 6 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2009 214 8.93 9771 13630 216104 2020 7 DSL 2009 779 41.09 21852 17228 264599 2020 7 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2009 3 0.27 134 30184 589664 2020 8 DSL 2009 222 35.95 1125 52820 946647 2020 8 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2009 10 0.37 445 12430 197078 2020 9 DSL 2009 35 1.71 995 15711 241301 2020 9 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2009 11 1.24 45 35708 428496 2020 10 DSL 2009 8 0.85 31 35708 428496 2020 10 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2009 815 4.31 1631 1832 32313 2020 11 CAT 2009 1671 8.82 3341 1832 32313 2020 11 DSL 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2009 0 0.01 1 12031 144372 2020 12 DSL 2009 2 0.06 7 12031 144372 2020 12 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2009 777 8.67 78 3646 49974 2020 13 DSL 2009 75 0.84 8 3646 49974 2020 13 ELEC 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 373491 2020 1 CAT 2010 62183 1753.87 392334 9786 143939 2020 1 DSL 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2010 628 17.72 3963 9786 143939 2020 2 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2010 7005 223.14 44197 11052 156655 2020 2 DSL 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2010 71 2.25 446 11052 156655 2020 3 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2010 22763 725.09 143620 11052 156655 2020 3 DSL 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2010 10469 350.65 66054 11621 159513 2020 4 DSL 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2010 1880 71.75 62165 12469 172000 2020 5 DSL 2010 423 16.15 5324 12469 172000 2020 5 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2010 332 12.29 10971 12102 169588 2020 6 DSL 2010 237 8.77 2977 12102 169588 2020 6 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2010 217 9.56 9917 14386 202474 2020 7 DSL 2010 794 44.42 22271 18270 247371 2020 7 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2010 3 0.32 146 32785 559480 2020 8 DSL 2010 246 43.6 1243 57987 893827 2020 8 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2010 10 0.41 469 13119 184648 2020 9 DSL 2010 38 1.91 1053 16661 225590 2020 9 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2010 13 1.38 50 35708 392788 2020 10 DSL 2010 9 0.94 34 35708 392788 2020 10 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2010 953 5.37 1906 1956 30481 2020 11 CAT 2010 1953 11.01 3906 1956 30481 2020 11 DSL 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2010 0 0.01 1 12031 132341 2020 12 DSL 2010 2 0.07 7 12031 132341 2020 12 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2010 819 9.28 82 3701 46328 2020 13 DSL 2010 78 0.88 8 3701 46328 2020 13 ELEC 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 389467 2020 1 CAT 2011 62832 1842.8 398941 10176 134153 2020 1 DSL 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2011 635 18.61 4030 10176 134153 2020 2 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2011 7355 242.26 46700 11428 145603 2020 2 DSL 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2011 74 2.45 472 11428 145603 2020 3 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2011 23404 770.87 148599 11428 145603 2020 3 DSL 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2011 10096 348.06 64101 11962 147892 2020 4 DSL 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2011 1774 69.72 58645 12843 159531 2020 5 DSL 2011 397 15.6 4991 12843 159531 2020 5 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2011 311 11.9 10289 12493 157486 2020 6 DSL 2011 222 8.5 2797 12493 157486 2020 6 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2011 214 9.92 9768 15155 188088 2020 7 DSL 2011 787 46.49 22057 19308 229101 2020 7 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2011 3 0.38 157 35608 526695 2020 8 DSL 2011 266 51.7 1346 63519 835840 2020 8 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2011 12 0.49 529 13821 171529 2020 9 DSL 2011 43 2.29 1194 17608 208929 2020 9 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2011 15 1.65 60 35708 357080 2020 10 DSL 2011 9 1.03 38 35708 357080 2020 10 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2011 1155 6.95 2310 2088 28525 2020 11 CAT 2011 2367 14.24 4733 2088 28525 2020 11 DSL 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2011 0 0.01 1 12031 120310 2020 12 DSL 2011 2 0.07 8 12031 120310 2020 12 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2011 827 9.53 83 3762 42627 2020 13 DSL 2011 78 0.9 8 3762 42627 2020 13 ELEC 2011 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 406350 2020 1 CAT 2012 66453 2031.58 424595 10607 123977 2020 1 DSL 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2012 944 28.85 6029 10607 123977 2020 2 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2012 7883 269.12 50367 11845 134175 2020 2 DSL 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2012 112 3.82 715 11845 134175 2020 3 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2012 25164 859.1 160784 11845 134175 2020 3 DSL 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2012 10915 388.12 69741 12337 135930 2020 4 DSL 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2012 1649 66.9 54513 13257 146688 2020 5 DSL 2012 365 14.82 4595 13257 146688 2020 5 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2012 315 12.45 10409 12926 144993 2020 6 DSL 2012 225 8.91 2832 12926 144993 2020 6 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2012 226 11.03 10321 15939 172933 2020 7 DSL 2012 838 52.15 23505 20325 209793 2020 7 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2012 4 0.47 180 38670 491087 2020 8 DSL 2012 290 61.47 1466 69301 772321 2020 8 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2012 12 0.55 570 14536 157708 2020 9 DSL 2012 46 2.62 1297 18535 191321 2020 9 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2012 17 1.87 69 35708 321372 2020 10 DSL 2012 10 1.13 41 35708 321372 2020 10 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2012 1324 8.51 2648 2229 26437 2020 11 CAT 2012 2713 17.43 5424 2229 26437 2020 11 DSL 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2012 0 0.01 1 12031 108279 2020 12 DSL 2012 2 0.08 9 12031 108279 2020 12 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2012 847 9.93 85 3828 38865 2020 13 DSL 2012 78 0.92 8 3828 38865 2020 13 ELEC 2012 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 424035 2020 1 CAT 2013 69862 2232.83 448468 11089 113370 2020 1 DSL 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2013 992 31.7 6368 11089 113370 2020 2 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2013 8405 298.19 53952 12310 122330 2020 2 DSL 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2013 119 4.23 766 12310 122330 2020 3 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2013 26925 955.3 172842 12310 122330 2020 3 DSL 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2013 11754 432.19 75451 12758 123593 2020 4 DSL 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2013 1596 67.02 52780 13719 133431 2020 5 DSL 2013 353 14.82 4439 13719 133431 2020 5 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2013 328 13.45 10834 13410 132067 2020 6 DSL 2013 235 9.64 2953 13410 132067 2020 6 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2013 241 12.35 11012 16733 156994 2020 7 DSL 2013 890 58.05 24965 21302 189468 2020 7 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2013 4 0.57 204 41982 452417 2020 8 DSL 2013 316 72.77 1601 75164 703020 2020 8 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2013 13 0.59 579 15260 143172 2020 9 DSL 2013 47 2.78 1311 19426 172786 2020 9 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2013 18 2.01 73 35708 285664 2020 10 DSL 2013 11 1.21 44 35708 285664 2020 10 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2013 1502 10.3 3004 2380 24208 2020 11 CAT 2013 3077 21.11 6154 2380 24208 2020 11 DSL 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2013 0 0.01 2 12031 96248 2020 12 DSL 2013 2 0.08 9 12031 96248 2020 12 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2013 901 10.77 90 3903 35037 2020 13 DSL 2013 83 0.99 8 3903 35037 2020 13 ELEC 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 442406 2020 1 CAT 2014 68962 2312.58 444069 11635 102281 2020 1 DSL 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2014 979 32.84 6305 11635 102281 2020 2 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2014 8392 310.53 54037 12839 110020 2020 2 DSL 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2014 119 4.41 767 12839 110020 2020 3 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2014 26629 985.38 171472 12839 110020 2020 3 DSL 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2014 11368 433.63 73201 13235 110835 2020 4 DSL 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2014 1731 75.48 57250 14243 119712 2020 5 DSL 2014 387 16.88 4870 14243 119712 2020 5 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2014 370 15.81 12239 13959 118657 2020 6 DSL 2014 264 11.26 3315 13959 118657 2020 6 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2014 267 14.33 12193 17540 140261 2020 7 DSL 2014 983 66.87 27576 22216 168166 2020 7 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2014 5 0.68 222 45558 410435 2020 8 DSL 2014 344 85.28 1743 80876 627856 2020 8 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2014 14 0.7 652 15996 127912 2020 9 DSL 2014 53 3.26 1474 20260 153360 2020 9 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2014 20 2.14 78 35708 249956 2020 10 DSL 2014 11 1.25 46 35708 249956 2020 10 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2014 1605 11.75 3210 2541 21828 2020 11 CAT 2014 3288 24.08 6576 2541 21828 2020 11 DSL 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2014 0 0.01 2 12031 84217 2020 12 DSL 2014 2 0.09 10 12031 84217 2020 12 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2014 920 11.22 92 3987 31134 2020 13 DSL 2014 84 1.03 8 3987 31134 2020 13 ELEC 2014 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 461320 2020 1 CAT 2015 71370 2522.92 461715 12265 90646 2020 1 DSL 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2015 1382 48.86 8942 12265 90646 2020 2 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2015 8809 341.45 56991 13448 97181 2020 2 DSL 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2015 171 6.61 1104 13448 97181 2020 3 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2015 28187 1092.51 182350 13448 97181 2020 3 DSL 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2015 12122 481.61 78420 13785 97600 2020 4 DSL 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2015 1825 82.94 60344 14848 105469 2020 5 DSL 2015 416 18.92 5236 14848 105469 2020 5 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2015 381 17.03 12606 14593 104698 2020 6 DSL 2015 275 12.3 3464 14593 104698 2020 6 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2015 275 15.47 12572 18357 122721 2020 7 DSL 2015 1026 72.4 28777 23047 145950 2020 7 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2015 6 0.87 263 49412 364877 2020 8 DSL 2015 378 99.77 1915 86130 546980 2020 8 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2015 15 0.75 668 16741 111916 2020 9 DSL 2015 55 3.51 1530 21018 133100 2020 9 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2015 19 2.03 74 35708 214248 2020 10 DSL 2015 11 1.18 43 35708 214248 2020 10 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2015 1769 13.83 3538 2713 19287 2020 11 CAT 2015 3624 28.34 7248 2713 19287 2020 11 DSL 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2015 0 0.02 2 12031 72186 2020 12 DSL 2015 3 0.1 11 12031 72186 2020 12 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2015 928 11.6 93 4085 27147 2020 13 DSL 2015 83 1.04 8 4085 27147 2020 13 ELEC 2015 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 480674 2020 1 CAT 2016 70794 2654.57 459404 13010 78381 2020 1 DSL 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2016 1371 51.41 8898 13010 78381 2020 2 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2016 8542 348.83 55431 14169 83733 2020 2 DSL 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2016 165 6.76 1074 14169 83733 2020 3 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2016 27205 1110.98 176541 14169 83733 2020 3 DSL 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2016 11687 486.28 75843 14436 83815 2020 4 DSL 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2016 1651 78.67 54603 15564 90621 2020 5 DSL 2016 376 17.89 4725 15564 90621 2020 5 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2016 353 16.6 11688 15342 90105 2020 6 DSL 2016 262 12.3 3294 15342 90105 2020 6 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2016 252 14.78 11491 19186 104364 2020 7 DSL 2016 945 68.78 26507 23770 122903 2020 7 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2016 5 0.89 248 53554 315465 2020 8 DSL 2016 342 94.82 1731 90543 460850 2020 8 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2016 16 0.86 735 17497 95175 2020 9 DSL 2016 60 4.01 1695 21677 112082 2020 9 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2016 17 1.83 67 35708 178540 2020 10 DSL 2016 10 1.07 39 35708 178540 2020 10 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2016 1834 15.32 3668 2897 16574 2020 11 CAT 2016 3758 31.38 7516 2897 16574 2020 11 DSL 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2016 0 0.02 2 12031 60155 2020 12 DSL 2016 3 0.1 11 12031 60155 2020 12 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2016 956 12.29 96 4200 23062 2020 13 DSL 2016 84 1.08 8 4200 23062 2020 13 ELEC 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 500449 2020 1 CAT 2017 73359 2943.79 476783 13923 65371 2020 1 DSL 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2017 1421 57.02 9234 13923 65371 2020 2 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2017 9011 390.91 58567 15051 69564 2020 2 DSL 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2017 175 7.57 1134 15051 69564 2020 3 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2017 28582 1239.87 185762 15051 69564 2020 3 DSL 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2017 12372 543.16 80411 15232 69379 2020 4 DSL 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2017 1703 85.68 56301 16441 75057 2020 5 DSL 2017 387 19.48 4870 16441 75057 2020 5 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2017 372 18.51 12298 16259 74763 2020 6 DSL 2017 269 13.4 3388 16259 74763 2020 6 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2017 261 15.98 11905 20021 85178 2020 7 DSL 2017 989 73.71 27724 24355 99133 2020 7 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2017 5 0.94 241 58001 261911 2020 8 DSL 2017 316 90.57 1599 93630 370307 2020 8 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2017 17 0.93 764 18258 77678 2020 9 DSL 2017 63 4.31 1779 22211 90405 2020 9 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2017 18 2 73 35708 142832 2020 10 DSL 2017 11 1.18 43 35708 142832 2020 10 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2017 1985 17.68 3969 3091 13677 2020 11 CAT 2017 4066 36.22 8131 3091 13677 2020 11 DSL 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2017 0 0.02 2 12031 48124 2020 12 DSL 2017 3 0.11 12 12031 48124 2020 12 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2017 997 13.24 100 4341 18862 2020 13 DSL 2017 86 1.14 9 4341 18862 2020 13 ELEC 2017 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 521008 2020 1 CAT 2018 75538 3287.29 492461 15099 51448 2020 1 DSL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2018 1858 80.84 12110 15099 51448 2020 2 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2018 9262 432.15 60381 16189 54513 2020 2 DSL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2018 228 10.63 1485 16189 54513 2020 3 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2018 29861 1393.32 194675 16189 54513 2020 3 DSL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2018 13007 609.53 84798 16259 54147 2020 4 DSL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2018 1782 95.83 58921 17570 58616 2020 5 DSL 2018 416 22.37 5232 17570 58616 2020 5 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2018 388 20.73 12839 17441 58504 2020 6 DSL 2018 284 15.15 3569 17441 58504 2020 6 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2018 270 17.25 12335 20865 65157 2020 7 DSL 2018 1039 78.83 29146 24778 74778 2020 7 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2018 5 1.01 241 62762 203910 2020 8 DSL 2018 313 90.75 1582 94807 276677 2020 8 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2018 17 0.97 758 19028 59420 2020 9 DSL 2018 64 4.42 1791 22596 68194 2020 9 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2018 20 2.18 80 35708 107124 2020 10 DSL 2018 12 1.28 47 35708 107124 2020 10 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2018 2133 20.29 4265 3301 10586 2020 11 CAT 2018 4370 41.57 8738 3301 10586 2020 11 DSL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2018 1 0.02 2 12031 36093 2020 12 DSL 2018 3 0.12 13 12031 36093 2020 12 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2018 1045 14.46 105 4523 14521 2020 13 DSL 2018 87 1.21 9 4523 14521 2020 13 ELEC 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 543776 2020 1 CAT 2019 78980 3814.47 516475 16757 36349 2020 1 DSL 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2019 1942 93.8 12700 16757 36349 2020 2 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2019 9529 488.64 62313 17792 38324 2020 2 DSL 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2019 234 12.02 1532 17792 38324 2020 3 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2019 31213 1600.59 204111 17792 38324 2020 3 DSL 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2019 13766 702.53 90019 17707 37888 2020 4 DSL 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2019 1866 109.46 61714 19162 41046 2020 5 DSL 2019 435 25.51 5472 19162 41046 2020 5 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2019 419 24.49 13847 19107 41063 2020 6 DSL 2019 303 17.75 3818 19107 41063 2020 6 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2019 279 18.53 12727 21717 44292 2020 7 DSL 2019 1072 82.01 30050 25002 50000 2020 7 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2019 5 1.1 242 67857 141148 2020 8 DSL 2019 319 91.15 1614 93373 181870 2020 8 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2019 17 1.05 792 19805 40392 2020 9 DSL 2019 67 4.65 1870 22801 45598 2020 9 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2019 22 2.35 86 35708 71416 2020 10 DSL 2019 13 1.38 51 35708 71416 2020 10 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2019 2333 23.7 4666 3524 7285 2020 11 CAT 2019 4780 48.55 9559 3524 7285 2020 11 DSL 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2019 1 0.02 2 12031 24062 2020 12 DSL 2019 3 0.12 13 12031 24062 2020 12 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2019 1100 16.1 110 4780 9998 2020 13 DSL 2019 89 1.3 9 4780 9998 2020 13 ELEC 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 574822 2020 1 CAT 2020 79947 4514.45 524401 19592 19592 2020 1 DSL 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 ELEC 2020 1966 111.01 12895 19592 19592 2020 2 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 CAT 2020 9590 567.53 62907 20532 20532 2020 2 DSL 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2 ELEC 2020 236 13.96 1547 20532 20532 2020 3 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 CAT 2020 32006 1894.02 209938 20532 20532 2020 3 DSL 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 3 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 CAT 2020 14227 827.53 93320 20181 20181 2020 4 DSL 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 4 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5 CAT 2020 1910 127.94 63157 21884 21884 2020 5 DSL 2020 445 29.82 5600 21884 21884 2020 5 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 6 CAT 2020 416 27.94 13748 21956 21956 2020 6 DSL 2020 301 20.25 3790 21956 21956 2020 6 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 7 CAT 2020 287 19.8 13088 22575 22575 2020 7 DSL 2020 1102 84.32 30902 24998 24998 2020 7 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 8 CAT 2020 5 1.18 240 73291 73291 2020 8 DSL 2020 316 85.63 1600 88497 88497 2020 8 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 9 CAT 2020 17 1.1 798 20587 20587 2020 9 DSL 2020 67 4.69 1885 22797 22797 2020 9 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 10 CAT 2020 24 2.58 94 35708 35708 2020 10 DSL 2020 14 1.51 55 35708 35708 2020 10 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 NCAT 2020 2371 25.7 4741 3761 3761 2020 11 CAT 2020 4857 52.65 9713 3761 3761 2020 11 DSL 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 11 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 12 CAT 2020 1 0.02 2 12031 12031 2020 12 DSL 2020 4 0.13 14 12031 12031 2020 12 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 NCAT 2020 0 0 0 0 0 2020 13 CAT 2020 1111 17.74 111 5218 5218 2020 13 DSL 2020 90 1.43 9 5218 5218 2020 13 ELEC 2020 0 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE FUEL EFFICIENCY IN P-2020BASED ON EMFAC 2020 FLEET MIX 1976 204,536 1977 205,907 1978 214,063 1979 215,591 1980 212,751 1981 202,354 1982 203,686 1983 197,864 1984 199,185 MPG GALLONS 1976-1984 1,855,937 16.0 115,996 1985 200,533 1986 201,927 1987 204,458 1988 207,357 1989 211,533 1985-1989 1,025,808 17.5 58,618 1990 217,377 20.3 10,708 1991 223,217 21.2 10,529 1992 229,102 21.0 10,910 1993 235,022 20.6 11,409 1994 241,709 20.8 11,621 1995 247,861 21.1 11,747 1996 254,158 21.2 11,989 1997 260,654 21.5 12,123 1998 267,401 21.6 12,380 1999 274,471 21.4 12,826 2000 281,929 21.9 12,873 2001 289,872 22.1 13,116 2002 298,373 25.1 11,887 2003 324,403 25.1 12,924 2004 298,011 25.1 11,873 2005 308,262 25.1 12,281 2006 319,382 25.1 12,724 2007 331,430 25.1 13,204 2008 344,455 25.1 13,723 2009 358,471 24.4 14,691 2010 373,491 26.0 14,365 2011 389,467 28.9 13,476 2012 406,350 32.4 12,542 2013 424,035 32.7 12,967 2014 442,406 33.4 13,246 2015 461,320 34.5 13,372 2016 480,674 35.7 13,464 2017 500,449 37.7 13,275 2018 521,008 40.1 12,993 2019 543,776 41.6 13,072 2020 574,822 42.5 13,525 TOTAL MILES 13,605,103 GALLONS 566,450 Average Fuel Efficiency P-2020 24.0 AVERAGE FUEL EFFICIENCY IN P-2035 BASED ON EMFAC 2035 FLEET MIX BAU 1976 204,536 1977 205,907 1978 214,063 1979 215,591 1980 212,751 1981 202,354 1982 203,686 1983 197,864 1984 199,185 MPG GALLONS 1976-1984 1,855,937 16.0 115,996 1985 200,533 1986 201,927 1987 204,458 1988 207,357 1989 211,533 1985-1989 1,025,808 17.5 58,618 1990 217,377 20.3 10,708 1991 223,217 21.2 10,529 1992 229,102 21.0 10,910 1993 235,022 20.6 11,409 1994 241,709 20.8 11,621 1995 247,861 21.1 11,747 1996 254,158 21.2 11,989 1997 260,654 21.5 12,123 1998 267,401 21.6 12,380 1999 274,471 21.4 12,826 2000 281,929 21.9 12,873 2001 289,872 22.1 13,116 2002 298,373 25.1 11,887 2003 324,403 25.1 12,924 2004 298,011 25.1 11,873 2005 308,262 25.1 12,281 2006 319,382 25.1 12,724 2007 331,430 25.1 13,204 2008 344,455 25.1 13,723 2009 358,471 24.4 14,691 2010 373,491 24.4 15,307 2011 389,467 24.4 15,962 2012 406,350 24.4 16,654 2013 424,035 24.4 17,378 2014 442,406 24.4 18,131 2015 461,320 24.4 18,907 2016 480,674 24.4 19,700 2017 500,449 24.4 20,510 2018 521,008 24.4 21,353 2019 543,776 24.4 22,286 2020 574,822 24.4 23,558 TOTAL MILES 13,605,103 GALLONS 629,900 Average Fuel Efficiency P-2020 BAU 21.6 percent increase in fuel efficiency on-road because of Pavley 11.20% Analysis InputsVersion 8 (5/06)WAste Reduction Model (WARM) -- InputsUse this worksheet to describe the baseline and alternative MSW management scenarios that you wantto compare. The shaded areas indicate where you need to enter information.1.Describe the baseline generation and management for the MSW materials listed below.If the material is not generated in your community or you do not want to analyze it, leave it blank or enter 0. Make sure that the total quantity generated equals the total quantity managed.MaterialTons Generated Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Aluminum CansNASteel CansNACopper WireNAGlass6 6 NAHDPENALDPENAPETNACorrugated CardboardNAMagazines/Third-class MailNANewspaperNAOffice PaperNAPhonebooksNATextbooksNADimensional LumberNAMedium-density FiberboardNAFood ScrapsNAYard TrimmingsNAGrassNALeavesNABranchesNAMixed Paper (general)97 97 NAMixed Paper (primarily residential)NAMixed Paper (primarily from offices)NAMixed Metals24 24 NAMixed Plastics53 53 NAMixed RecyclablesNAMixed Organics143 NA143 Mixed MSW17 NA17 NACarpetNAPersonal ComputersNAClay BricksNANANAConcrete1131 131 NANAFly Ash2NANATires3NAPage 1 of 1 GHG Emissions Analysis -- Summary Report Version 8 (5/06) GHG Emissions Waste Management Analysis for Prepared by: Project Period for this Analysis: 01/00/00 to 01/00/00 GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCO2E): 83 Commodity Tons Recycled Tons Landfilled Tons Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCO2E Glass - 6 - NA 0 Mixed Paper, Broad - 97 - NA 34 Mixed Metals - 24 - NA 1 Mixed Plastics - 53 - NA 2 Mixed Organics NA 143 - - 34 Mixed MSW NA 17 - NA 7 Concrete - 131 NA NA 5 Energy From Waste Disposal Statewide Waste Profile -2003 Commercial Residential Electronics 0.5%0.7% Other Organic 30.4%48.6% Paper 20.7%19.6% Plastic 11.3%9.2% Metal 4.5%4.0% Inerts and Other 27.8%11.2% Glass 1.2%2.4% Mixed Residue 0.1%2.5% Household Hazardous Waste 0.3%0.3% Special Waste 3.1%1.5% Project-Generated Solid Waste lbs/day 469.8 tons/year Commercial 2,574 Total 2,574 Project-Generated Solid Waste by Type lbs/day tons/year Electronics 13 2 Other Organic 783 143 Paper 533 97 Plastic 291 53 Metal 116 21 Inerts and Other 716 131 Glass 31 6 Mixed Residue 3 1 Household Hazardous Waste 8 1 Special Waste 80 15 2,574 470 Conversion 0.0005 tons/lbs WARM FIELDS Glass 6 Mixed Paper (general)97 Mixed Metals 24 Mixed Plastics 53 Mixed Organics 143 Mixed MSW 17 Concrete1 131 FROM WARM 83 Metric Tons of CO2e 91 Short Tons of CO2e metric tons to short tons conversion 1.102311 tons/metric ton Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to the Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1346 Energy Use from Project-Related Water Demand Total project-related water demand 9,546 gallons per day 3,484,260 gallons per year 3.5 million gallons per day Energy-intensity 44,250 Kwh/MG CO2 Emissions from Water Demand 27,051 lbs of CO2e/year 74 lbs of CO2e/day Project-related water-energy 14 tons of CO2e/year 12 metrics tons of CO2e/year Table 1-3: Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Kwh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatement 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Total 3,950 12,700 California Energy Emission Factors 0.61 lbs of CO2/kwh For California 0.0000067 lbs of CH4/kwh For California 0.00000378 lbs of N20/kwh For California Coversion to CO2e CH4 N20 21 310 lbs of CO2e/kwh 0.611 Sources Conversion:0.0005 lbs in a ton 0.9071847 tons in a Metric Ton California Energy Commission. 2005, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. Energy Intensity: Amount of energy consumed per unit of water to perform water management- related actions (i.e., desalting, pumping, presurizing, groundwater extraction, conveyance, and treatment) Kwh/MG: kilowatt hours per million gallon of water US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2002, April. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Average Electricty Factors by State and Region. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html GHG Emissions Inventory MTons MTons Proposed Project CO2e Percent Proposed Project W/Scoping Plan Reductions - 2020 inventory CO2e Percent Natural Gas 58 3%Natural Gas 49 3% Hearth 0 0%Hearth 0 0% Landscape 0 0%Landscape 0 0% Consumer Products 0 0%Consumer Products 0 0% Architectural Coatings 0 0%Architectural Coatings 0 0% Area Sources 58 3%Area Sources 50 3% Transportation 1,492 79%Transportation 1,325 79% Water 12 1%Water 10 1% Purchased Energy 247 13%Purchased Energy 210 13% Energy Use 259 14%Energy Use 220 13% Waste Disposal 83 4%Waste Disposal 83 5% TOTAL 1,892 TOTAL 1,677 PER-CAPITA (SP)1.9 PER-CAPITA (SP)1.6 -11% Ton - Metric Ton 0.907 CO2- CO2e Gas (BAAQMD) 1.004 CO2 - CO2e Diesel (BAAQMD)1.003 MTons MTons Proposed Project CO2e Percent Proposed Project W/Scoping Plan Reductions CO2e Percent Annual Construction 92 Annual Average Construction SCOPING PLAN REDUCTIONS Notes: MTons: Metric Tons; MMTons: milllion Metric Tons; SP: Service Population (i.e., employees + population) 1 Assumes an increase in 15 percent energy efficiency from the 2005 to 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, California Building Code). 2 Assumes a 20 percent decrease in per-capita water use in accordance with the statewide Draft 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan. 3 Assumes an increase in renewable energy production of 21 percent. Existing renewable energy production is currently 12 percent of the statewide energy supply 4 Assumes a 42.8 percent increase in fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles from 2009 to 2020 in the CARB 2008 Technical Advisory. Pavley 2 would require a average fleet fuel economy of new cars of 43 mpg by 2020 compared to an existing average of 24.4 mpg. Based on EMFAC fleet mix 1976 through 2020 and an average fuel efficiency across all model years of 24.0 mpg compared to 21.6 mpg without Pavley (or 11.2% increase in fuel efficiency) Construction Localized Significance Thresholds - Battle of the DanceSRA No.AcresSource Receptor Distance (meters)Source Receptor Distance (Feet)174.802582Source Central Orange CountyDistance (meters)25NOx 178CO 1217PM10 13PM2.5 7Acres25 50 100200500NOx 41601491621842325183167180202245178163176198242CO 41074150321813574872251253173424984018933612171688243539299213PM10 41132488118151339558818813385487187PM2.5 46814301035791532109791532108Central Orange County4.80 Acres2550100200500NOx 178163176198242CO 12171688243539299213PM10 13385487187PM2.5 791532108Acre BelowAcre AboveSRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres174175Distance Increment Below25Distance Increment Above25 Operation Localized Significance Thresholds - Battle of the DanceSRA No.AcresSource Receptor Distance (meters)Source Receptor Distance (Feet)174.802582Source Receptor Central Orange CountyDistance (meters) 25NOx 178CO 1217PM10 3PM2.5 2Acres25 50 100200500NOx 41601491621842325183167180202245178163176198242CO 41074150321813574872251253173424984018933612171688243539299213PM10 4381220435310142245310142245PM2.5 42347255234827234827Central Orange County4.80 AcresMobile-Source Emissions (highest)2550100200500% Mobile Source Emissions onsiteNOx 178163176198242CO 12171688243539299213PM10 310142245PM2.5 234827Acre BelowAcre AboveSRA No.Acres SRA No. Acres174175Distance Increment Below25Distance Increment Above25Updated: 10/21/2010 - Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 07/01/2010-07/15/2010 11.54 7.06 4.53 1.47 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 3.77 0.78 Demo Off Road Diesel 7.68 4.68 0.59 0.54 Demo On Road Diesel 3.80 1.39 0.17 0.14 Demo Worker Trips 0.06 0.98 0.01 0.00 ONSITE 7.68 4.68 4.36 1.32 Fine Grading 07/16/2010-08/16/2010 25.05 13.44 5.04 1.94 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 3.78 0.79 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 24.99 12.46 1.25 1.15 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.06 0.98 0.01 0.00 ONSITE 24.99 12.46 5.03 1.94 Building 08/17/2010-10/18/2010 17.16 25.50 2.43 2.23 Building Off Road Diesel 16.55 11.20 1.19 1.10 Building Vendor Trips 0.46 0.36 0.02 0.02 Building Worker Trips 0.16 2.74 0.03 0.01 ONSITE 16.55 11.20 1.19 1.10 Asphalt 09/18/2010-10/18/2010 20.03 13.18 1.67 1.52 Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 18.01 10.28 1.57 1.44 Paving On Road Diesel 1.89 0.69 0.08 0.07 Paving Worker Trips 0.13 2.22 0.02 0.01 Building 08/17/2010-10/18/2010 17.16 15.55 2060.28 2057.91 Building Off Road Diesel 16.55 11.20 1.19 1.10 Building Vendor Trips 0.46 0.36 0.02 0.02 Building Worker Trips 0.16 2.74 0.03 0.01 Coating 09/18/2010-10/18/2010 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 ONSITE 34.56 21.47 2.76 2.54 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:11 AMUrbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)File Name: P:\COA-52.0E\Data-Info\Tech Studies\AQ&GHG\Modeling\BattleofDance.urb924Project Name: Battle of the DanceProject Location: Orange CountyOn-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007Summary Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO22010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.610.940.65 0.000.290.060.350.060.060.12101.052010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.610.940.65 0.000.060.060.130.010.060.07101.05Percent Reduction0.000.000.00 0.00 77.860.0063.86 77.710.00 39.580.00AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO264.02TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)0.070.050.32 0.000.000.00ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATESTOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)1.001.25 14.06 0.022.930.561,638.61SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)1.071.30 14.38 0.022.930.561,702.63Phase AssumptionsPhase: Demolition 7/1/2010 - 7/15/2010 - Default Demolition DescriptionBuilding Volume Total (cubic feet): 899947.2Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 8978.7On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 124.7Off-Road Equipment:1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:11 AMPhase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionTotal Acres Disturbed: 4.8Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.2Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-dayOn Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0Off-Road Equipment:1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Paving 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Paving DescriptionAcres to be Paved: 3.8Off-Road Equipment:4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per dayPhase: Building Construction 8/17/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Building Construction DescriptionOff-Road Equipment:1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Architectural Coating 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Architectural Coating DescriptionRule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:11 AMConstruction Mitigated Detail Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, MitigatedROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO220100.610.940.650.000.060.060.130.010.060.07101.05Demolition 07/01/2010-07/15/20100.010.060.040.000.020.000.020.000.000.017.44Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.190.000.190.040.000.040.00Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.040.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.003.85Demo On Road Diesel0.000.020.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.91Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.68Fine Grading 07/16/2010-08/16/20100.030.280.150.000.040.010.060.010.010.0226.09Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.040.000.040.010.000.010.00Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.270.140.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.72Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.37Building 08/17/2010-10/18/20100.080.390.320.000.000.030.030.000.030.0346.28Building Off Road Diesel0.080.370.250.000.000.030.030.000.020.0236.48Building Vendor Trips0.000.010.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.01Building Worker Trips0.000.000.060.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.80Asphalt 09/18/2010-10/18/20100.040.210.140.000.000.020.020.000.020.0220.59Paving Off-Gas0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Paving Off Road Diesel0.030.190.110.000.000.020.020.000.020.0214.89Paving On Road Diesel0.000.020.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.76Paving Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.94Coating 09/18/2010-10/18/20100.440.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.65Architectural Coating0.440.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.65Construction Related Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionFor Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:0.00 0.000.000.00 PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:11 AMArea Source Unmitigated Detail Report:AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2Natural Gas0.000.050.040.000.000.0063.51Hearth0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Landscape0.020.000.280.000.000.000.51Consumer Products0.00Architectural Coatings0.05TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)0.070.050.320.000.000.0064.02Area Source Changes to DefaultsPercentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0%Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0%Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 0%Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOXCOSO2PM10PM25CO2Dinner Theater1.001.2514.060.022.930.561,638.61TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)1.001.2514.060.022.930.561,638.61Operational Settings:Does not include correction for passby tripsDoes not include double counting adjustment for internal tripsAnalysis Year: 2010 Season: AnnualEmfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Summary of Land UsesLand Use TypeAcreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMTDinner Theater23.98 1000 sq ft 43.501,043.139,360.001,043.139,360.00 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:11 AMVehicle Fleet MixVehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel0.4Light Truck < 3750 lbs7.51.495.72.9Light Auto55.51.098.60.0Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs11.40.999.10.0Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs25.60.499.618.8Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.00.060.040.0Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.00.081.277.8Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs0.00.00.0100.0Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs0.00.022.2100.0Urban Bus0.00.00.00.0Other Bus0.00.00.00.0School Bus0.00.00.0100.0Motorcycle0.069.031.012.5Travel ConditionsResidentialCommercialMotor Home0.0 0.0 87.5Home-Work Home-Shop Home-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomerUrban Trip Length (miles)12.77.09.513.37.48.9Rural Trip Length (miles)17.612.114.915.49.612.6Trip speeds (mph)30.030.030.030.030.030.0% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.197.0% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)Operational Changes to DefaultsDinner Theater2.0 1.0 Fleet Mix Default Fleet Mix Trips Adjusted Fleet Mix Normalized Fleet Mix Adjusted Trips Light Auto 51.5 22 51.5 55.4%24 Light Truck (<3750)7 3 7 7.5%3 Light Truck (3751-5750)23.8 10 23.8 25.6%11 Medium Truck 10.6 5 10.6 11.4%5 Light Heavy 1.6 1 0 0.0%0 Light Heavy 0.5 0 0 0.0%0 Medium Heavy 0.9 0 0 0.0%0 Heavy-Heavy 0.2 0 0 0.0%0 Line Haul 0.1 0 0 0.0%0 Urban Bus 0 0 0 0.0%0 Motorcycle 2.9 1 0 0.0%0 School Bus 0.1 0 0 0.0%0 Motor Home 0.8 0 0 0.0%0 Total 100 43 92.9 100%43 1100 Page: 14/2/2010 10:01:50 AMUrbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)File Name: P:\COA-52.0E\Data-Info\Tech Studies\AQ&GHG\Modeling\BattleofDance.urb924Project Name: Battle of the DanceProject Location: Orange CountyOn-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007Summary Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO22010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)49.79 37.22 27.97 0.01 24.012.8725.265.014,079.542010 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)49.79 37.22 27.97 0.013.792.872.642.652.646.174,079.54AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES5.040.79ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2350.81TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.390.311.79 0.000.010.01ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATESTOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)5.266.35 78.87 0.10 16.063.059,307.52SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)5.656.66 80.66 0.10 16.073.069,658.33Phase AssumptionsPhase: Demolition 7/1/2010 - 7/15/2010 - Default Demolition DescriptionBuilding Volume Total (cubic feet): 899947.2Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 8978.7On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 124.7Off-Road Equipment:1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 14/2/2010 10:01:50 AMPhase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionTotal Acres Disturbed: 4.8Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.2Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-dayOn Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0Off-Road Equipment:1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Paving 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Paving DescriptionAcres to be Paved: 3.8Off-Road Equipment:4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per dayPhase: Building Construction 8/17/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Building Construction DescriptionOff-Road Equipment:1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Architectural Coating 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Architectural Coating DescriptionRule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 14/2/2010 10:01:50 AMConstruction Mitigated Detail Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, MitigatedROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO2Time Slice 7/1/2010-7/15/2010 Active Days: 111.45 11.547.060.013.790.744.530.790.681.47 1,353.29Demolition 07/01/2010-07/15/20101.45 11.547.060.013.790.744.530.790.681.47 1,353.29Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.003.770.003.770.780.000.780.00Demo Off Road Diesel1.147.684.680.000.000.590.590.000.540.54700.30Demo On Road Diesel0.283.801.390.000.020.150.170.010.140.14528.55Demo Worker Trips0.030.060.980.000.010.000.010.000.000.00124.44Time Slice 7/16/2010-8/16/2010 Active Days: 223.03 25.0513.440.003.791.255.040.791.151.94 2,371.76Fine Grading 07/16/2010-08/16/20103.03 25.0513.440.003.791.255.040.791.151.94 2,371.76Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.003.780.003.780.790.000.790.00Fine Grading Off Road Diesel3.00 24.9912.460.000.001.251.250.001.151.15 2,247.32Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.060.980.000.010.000.010.000.000.00124.44Time Slice 8/17/2010-9/17/2010 Active Days: 243.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building 08/17/2010-10/18/20103.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building Off Road Diesel3.65 16.5511.200.000.001.191.190.001.101.10 1,621.20Building Vendor Trips0.040.460.360.000.000.020.020.000.020.0289.13Building Worker Trips0.080.162.740.000.020.010.030.010.010.01346.45Time Slice 9/20/2010-10/18/2010 Active Days: 2149.7937.2227.970.010.042.872.910.022.642.654,079.54Asphalt 09/18/2010-10/18/20103.64 20.0313.180.010.021.651.670.011.521.52 1,961.24Paving Off-Gas0.450.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Paving Off Road Diesel2.98 18.0110.280.000.001.571.570.001.441.44 1,418.44Paving On Road Diesel0.141.890.690.000.010.070.080.000.070.07262.79Paving Worker Trips0.070.132.220.000.010.010.020.000.010.01280.00Building 08/17/2010-10/18/20103.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building Off Road Diesel3.65 16.5511.200.000.001.191.190.001.101.10 1,621.20Building Vendor Trips0.040.460.360.000.000.020.020.000.020.0289.13Building Worker Trips0.080.162.740.000.020.010.030.010.010.01346.45Coating 09/18/2010-10/18/201042.370.030.490.000.000.000.000.000.000.0061.52Architectural Coating42.360.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Coating Worker Trips0.010.030.490.000.000.000.000.000.000.0061.52 Page: 14/2/2010 10:01:50 AMConstruction Related Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionFor Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2Natural Gas0.020.290.240.000.000.00348.00Hearth - No Summer EmissionsLandscape0.120.021.550.000.010.012.81Consumer Products0.00Architectural Coatings0.25TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.390.311.790.000.010.01350.81Area Source Changes to DefaultsPercentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0%Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0%Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 0%Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOXCOSO2PM10PM25CO2Dinner Theater5.266.3578.870.1016.063.059,307.52TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)5.266.3578.870.1016.063.059,307.52Operational Settings:Does not include correction for passby tripsDoes not include double counting adjustment for internal tripsAnalysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 80 Season: SummerEmfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page: 14/2/2010 10:01:50 AMSummary of Land UsesLand Use TypeAcreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMTDinner Theater23.98 1000 sq ft 43.501,043.139,360.001,043.139,360.00Vehicle Fleet MixVehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel0.4Light Truck < 3750 lbs7.51.495.72.9Light Auto55.51.098.60.0Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs11.40.999.10.0Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs25.60.499.618.8Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.00.060.040.0Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.00.081.277.8Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs0.00.00.0100.0Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs0.00.022.2100.0Urban Bus0.00.00.00.0Other Bus0.00.00.00.0School Bus0.00.00.0100.0Motorcycle0.069.031.012.5Travel ConditionsResidentialCommercialMotor Home0.0 0.0 87.5Home-Work Home-Shop Home-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomerUrban Trip Length (miles)12.77.09.513.37.48.9Rural Trip Length (miles)17.612.114.915.49.612.6Trip speeds (mph)30.030.030.030.030.030.0% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.197.0% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)Operational Changes to DefaultsDinner Theater2.0 1.0 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:01 AMUrbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)File Name: P:\COA-52.0E\Data-Info\Tech Studies\AQ&GHG\Modeling\BattleofDance.urb924Project Name: Battle of the DanceProject Location: Orange CountyOn-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007Summary Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO22010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)49.79 37.22 27.97 0.01 24.012.8725.265.014,079.542010 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)49.79 37.22 27.97 0.013.792.872.642.652.646.174,079.54AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES5.040.79ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2348.00TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.270.290.24 0.000.000.00ROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATESTOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)5.907.91 73.40 0.08 16.063.058,321.01SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATESROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)6.178.20 73.64 0.08 16.063.058,669.01Phase AssumptionsPhase: Demolition 7/1/2010 - 7/15/2010 - Default Demolition DescriptionBuilding Volume Total (cubic feet): 899947.2Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 8978.7On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 124.7Off-Road Equipment:1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:01 AMPhase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionTotal Acres Disturbed: 4.8Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.2Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-dayOn Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0Off-Road Equipment:1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Paving 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Paving DescriptionAcres to be Paved: 3.8Off-Road Equipment:4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per dayPhase: Building Construction 8/17/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Building Construction DescriptionOff-Road Equipment:1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per dayPhase: Architectural Coating 9/18/2010 - 10/18/2010 - Default Architectural Coating DescriptionRule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:01 AMConstruction Mitigated Detail Report:CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, MitigatedROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 ExhaustPM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 ExhaustPM2.5CO2Time Slice 7/1/2010-7/15/2010 Active Days: 111.45 11.547.060.013.790.744.530.790.681.47 1,353.29Demolition 07/01/2010-07/15/20101.45 11.547.060.013.790.744.530.790.681.47 1,353.29Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.003.770.003.770.780.000.780.00Demo Off Road Diesel1.147.684.680.000.000.590.590.000.540.54700.30Demo On Road Diesel0.283.801.390.000.020.150.170.010.140.14528.55Demo Worker Trips0.030.060.980.000.010.000.010.000.000.00124.44Time Slice 7/16/2010-8/16/2010 Active Days: 223.03 25.0513.440.003.791.255.040.791.151.94 2,371.76Fine Grading 07/16/2010-08/16/20103.03 25.0513.440.003.791.255.040.791.151.94 2,371.76Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.003.780.003.780.790.000.790.00Fine Grading Off Road Diesel3.00 24.9912.460.000.001.251.250.001.151.15 2,247.32Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.060.980.000.010.000.010.000.000.00124.44Time Slice 8/17/2010-9/17/2010 Active Days: 243.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building 08/17/2010-10/18/20103.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building Off Road Diesel3.65 16.5511.200.000.001.191.190.001.101.10 1,621.20Building Vendor Trips0.040.460.360.000.000.020.020.000.020.0289.13Building Worker Trips0.080.162.740.000.020.010.030.010.010.01346.45Time Slice 9/20/2010-10/18/2010 Active Days: 2149.7937.2227.970.010.042.872.910.022.642.654,079.54Asphalt 09/18/2010-10/18/20103.64 20.0313.180.010.021.651.670.011.521.52 1,961.24Paving Off-Gas0.450.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Paving Off Road Diesel2.98 18.0110.280.000.001.571.570.001.441.44 1,418.44Paving On Road Diesel0.141.890.690.000.010.070.080.000.070.07262.79Paving Worker Trips0.070.132.220.000.010.010.020.000.010.01280.00Building 08/17/2010-10/18/20103.77 17.1614.300.000.021.221.240.011.121.13 2,056.78Building Off Road Diesel3.65 16.5511.200.000.001.191.190.001.101.10 1,621.20Building Vendor Trips0.040.460.360.000.000.020.020.000.020.0289.13Building Worker Trips0.080.162.740.000.020.010.030.010.010.01346.45Coating 09/18/2010-10/18/201042.370.030.490.000.000.000.000.000.000.0061.52Architectural Coating42.360.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Coating Worker Trips0.010.030.490.000.000.000.000.000.000.0061.52 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:01 AMConstruction Related Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 7/16/2010 - 8/16/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation DescriptionFor Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2Natural Gas0.020.290.240.000.000.00348.00Hearth0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Landscaping - No Winter EmissionsConsumer Products0.00Architectural Coatings0.25TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.270.290.240.000.000.00348.00Area Source Changes to DefaultsPercentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0%Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0%Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 0%Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, UnmitigatedSourceROGNOXCOSO2PM10PM25CO2Dinner Theater5.907.9173.400.0816.063.058,321.01TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)5.907.9173.400.0816.063.058,321.01Operational Settings:Does not include correction for passby tripsDoes not include double counting adjustment for internal tripsAnalysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 60 Season: WinterEmfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Page: 14/2/2010 10:02:01 AMSummary of Land UsesLand Use TypeAcreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMTDinner Theater23.98 1000 sq ft 43.501,043.139,360.001,043.139,360.00Vehicle Fleet MixVehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel0.4Light Truck < 3750 lbs7.51.495.72.9Light Auto55.51.098.60.0Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs11.40.999.10.0Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs25.60.499.618.8Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.00.060.040.0Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.00.081.277.8Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs0.00.00.0100.0Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs0.00.022.2100.0Urban Bus0.00.00.00.0Other Bus0.00.00.00.0School Bus0.00.00.0100.0Motorcycle0.069.031.012.5Travel ConditionsResidentialCommercialMotor Home0.0 0.0 87.5Home-Work Home-Shop Home-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomerUrban Trip Length (miles)12.77.09.513.37.48.9Rural Trip Length (miles)17.612.114.915.49.612.6Trip speeds (mph)30.030.030.030.030.030.0% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.197.0% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)Operational Changes to DefaultsDinner Theater2.0 1.0 SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA (047888) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 4/ 1/1906 to 11/30/2009 Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 97.9% Min. Temp.: 97.6% Precipitation: 99.6% Snowfall: 99.6% Snow Depth: 99.6% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (F) 68.0 68.9 70.6 73.0 75.2 78.6 83.6 84.7 83.9 79.4 74.2 68.8 75.7 Average Min. Temperature (F) 43.0 44.8 46.6 49.9 53.9 57.3 60.8 61.6 59.2 54.4 47.4 43.5 51.9 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 2.73 3.08 2.23 1.04 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.46 1.27 2.19 13.62 Average Total SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary 3/31/2010http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca7888 Appendix Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim Appendix C Noise Study Appendix The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Noise Appendix Characteristics of Sound Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 1, Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Typical human hearing can detect changes of approximately 3 dBA or greater under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA or greater is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. Table 1 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB Change in Apparent Loudness ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen, Engineering Noise Control, 1988. Point and Line Sources Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever-widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This is known as "spreading loss." The typical spreading loss for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, would also be reduced with distance, but the rate of reduction is affected by of both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas would actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with the noise reduction placed somewhere in between these two factors. Unfortunately the only way to actually determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Objects that block the line of sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the "shadow" of the blockage (such as behind a sound wall). If a receptor is located behind the wall, but has a view of the source, the wall would do little to reduce the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level, as the wall would reflect noise back to the receptor compounding the noise. Noise Metrics Several rating scales (or noise "metrics") exist to analyze adverse effects of noise, including traffic-generated noise, on a community. These scales include the equivalent noise level (Leq), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and the day/night noise level (Ldn). Leq is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged over a specified time period. The CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL differs from Leq in that it applies a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the daytime period (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 to 10:00 PM) is penalized by 5 dB, while nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noise is penalized by 10 dB. The Ldn noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 to 10:00 PM receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and Ldn metrics yield approximately the same 24-hour value (within 1 dB) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two. Regulatory Environment State of California California Building Code The state of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied tor new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction in 45 dBA CNEL. City of Anaheim Noise Standards Land Use Compatibility Cities and counties in California are preempted by federal law from controlling noise generated from most mobile sources, including noise generated by vehicles and trucks on the roadway, trains on the railroad, and airplanes. Therefore, Table 5.5-4 is used by the state as a tool to gauge the compatibility of new development in the noise environment generated by mobile sources. Table 5.5-4 identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan indicates that noise levels are to be attained in habitable exterior areas and need not encompass the entirety of the property, and that special consideration should be given in the case of infill residential development located along the City’s arterial corridors or railroad lines in order to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a quality living environment and attractive project design. Stationary Noise Nuisance The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA for extended period of time. The City applies these standards to nontransportation stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. The City’s Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Construction Noise The City of Anaheim exempts noise generated by construction or building repair from the noise limits of the City’s Municipal Code for the purpose of allowing such activities to occur. Pursuant to Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, construction is permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Emergency Vehicles The City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, exempts emergency activities and sound created by governmental units or their contractors from the noise limits of the City’s Municipal Code. Table 5.5-4 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility CNEL (dBA) Land Uses 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Amphitheaters, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural Explanatory Notes Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Normally Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction/development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Source: City of Anaheim, City of Anaheim General Plan, Chapter 9, Noise Element. Adopted May 2004. Federal Transit Administration The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective. The FTA provides criteria, shown in Table 6, for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of land uses that are sensitive to vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event. Table 6 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Human Annoyance Land Use Category Max Lv (VdB)1 Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and nonsensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas. Residential – Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential – Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Source: United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 1 As measured in 1/3 octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. In addition to the vibration annoyance standards presented above, the FTA also applies standards for construction vibration damage, as shown in Table 7. Structural damage is possible for typical residential construction when the peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeds 0.2 inch per second. This criterion is the threshold at which there is a risk of damage to normal dwelling houses. Table 7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria – Structural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec) VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, May 2006. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors Noise and vibration sensitive uses include residential land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Construction Generated Noise Construction Noise at 50 Feet (dBA Leq)50 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Minimum Required Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 84 83 Building Construction 84 72 Finishing and Site Cleanup 89 74 Feet Construction Noise at at:200 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Minimum Required Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 72 71 Building Construction 72 60 Finishing and Site Cleanup 77 62 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared for the USEPA, December 31, 1971. Based on analysis for Industrial, Parking Garage, Religious, Amusement and Recreations, Store, Service Station Construction Generated VibrationSmall BulldozerClosest DistanceAverage DistanceReceptor Location:50200Vibration Annoyance AssessmentApproximate Velocity at 25 ft (VdB)58Approximate Velocity (VdB) at Receptor (Closest)52Approximate Velocity (VdB) at Receptor (Average)40Criteria78Structural Damage AssessmentApproximate RMS Velocity at 25 feet (inch per second)0.003Approximate Velocity (inch/sec) at Receptor (Closest)0.001Criteria0.2Receptor Location:5050Vibration Annoyance AssessmentApproximate Velocity at 25 ft (VdB)58Approximate Velocity (VdB) at Receptor (Closest)52Approximate Velocity (VdB) at Receptor (Average)52Criteria88Structural Damage AssessmentApproximate RMS Velocity at 25 feet (inch per second)0.003Approximate Velocity (inch/sec) at Receptor (Closest)0.001Criteria0.2Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second.Source: Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006).1. Determined based on use of jackhammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feet Chapter 6.70 SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS Sections: 6.70.010 Established. 6.70.020 Violations and penalties. 6.70.030 Enforcement. 6.70.010 ESTABLISHED. Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are hereby determined to be objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and quiet enjoyment ofproperty in this City. No person shall within the City create any sound radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces asound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response. The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply. At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three (3) readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the source’s ofthe alleged objectionable sound are not operating. Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured according to American Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards Association, Inc., New York City, New York. Traffic sounds sound created by emergencyactivities and sound created by governmental units or their contractors shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18, 1968; Ord. 3400 § 1; February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.) 6.70.020 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. The first violation of this chapter by any person shall be punishable as an infraction in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Government Code. The second and all subsequent violations of said chapter committed by such person shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. (Ord. 5929 § 9; July 27, 2004.) Anaheim Municipal Code Title 6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Chapter 6.70 SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS Page 1 of 2 4/14/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title6publichealthandsafety/chapter67... 6.70.030 ENFORCEMENT. The Code Enforcement Manager of the City of Anaheim shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 5812 § 25; June 11, 2002.) Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. © 2008 American Legal Publishing Corporation techsupport@amlegal.com 1.800.445.5588. Page 2 of 2 4/14/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title6publichealthandsafety/chapter67... Chapter 6.72 AMPLIFIED SOUND Sections: 6.72.010 Purpose. 6.72.020 Regulation of amplified sound. 6.72.030 Definitions. 6.72.040 Exemptions from chapter. 6.72.050 Penalty for violations. 6.72.010 PURPOSE. This City Council enacts this legislation for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare of its citizenry. While recognizing that certain uses of sound-amplifying equipment are protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the City Council, nevertheless, feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of sound-amplifying equipment in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and raucous noise. (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.72.020 REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 6.70 of this code, it shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, or cause to be used or operated, within the City of Anaheim any sound-amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position, or mounted upon any vehicle, except when used or operated in compliance with the following provisions: .010 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for commercial purposes, except sound-amplifying equipment may be used for commercial purposes upon a moving vehicle between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to announce the presence of such vehicle in an area or location for commercial purposes; provided that such sound-amplifying equipment shall not be used during periods that the vehicle is stopped, parked or otherwise in a stationary position.. .020 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for noncommercial purposes between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. .030 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial Anaheim Municipal Code Title 6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Chapter 6.72 AMPLIFIED SOUND Page 1 of 3 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title6publichealthandsafety/chapter672... purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. .040 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. .050 Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing acuity within an enclosed building (other than a building within which the sound emanate) at a distance in excess of two hundred feet from the sound-amplifying equipment. .060 In no event shall the sound-amplifying equipment be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring or disturbing to a person of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood. .070 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use any sound-amplifying equipment within, upon or adjacent to the premises of any hospital, school, or publicly owned or operated arena, stadium, convention center or auditorium, while in use, in a manner which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with the conduct of any event, business or activity of any nature then occurring within such building or premises. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit any conduct which is otherwise prohibited by California Penal Code Sections 302 or 403, or any other provision of State law. (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5781 § 1; September 25, 2001; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.72.030 DEFINITIONS. .010 The word "person," as used herein, shall include the singular and the plural, and shall also mean and include any person, firm, corporation, association, club, partnership, society or any other form of association or organization. .020 The words "sound-amplifying equipment," as used herein, shall mean any device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound. .030 The word "zone," as used herein, shall mean the zoning designation given to any public or private property pursuant to the provisions of Title 18 of this Code. Any public or private street, alley or other right-of- way shall be deemed to have the same zoning designation as the public or private property immediately contiguous to such street, alley or right-of-way. Where the property on each side of a street, alley or right-of-way bears a different zoning designation, each such zoning designation shall be deemed to extend to the centerline of such street, alley or right-of-way. .040 Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to permit or authorize any activity or sound level which is otherwise prohibited by any provision of State law.(Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.72.040 EXEMPTIONS FROM CHAPTER. The following uses of sound-amplifying equipment and activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: .010 Vehicle sound systems, radios and similar devices located within or upon any vehicle, to the extent Page 2 of 3 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title6publichealthandsafety/chapter672... the sound from such devices is regulated by provisions of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. .020 Sound-amplifying equipment when used and heard only by occupants of the premises in which the devices are located. .030 Warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles, or horns or other warning devices on other vehicles when used for traffic safety purposes, or any other device when used by a public safety officer for official purposes. .040 Equipment used by any duly authorized facility operator, tenant or lessee as an integral part of any event at Anaheim Stadium, Arrowhead Pond, Anaheim Convention Center, or as an integral part of any event or program at any other publicly owned or operated facility. .050 Equipment and devices used as an integral part of any public or private institutional use lawfully permitted pursuant to Title 18 of this Code, including but not limited to, public and private educational institutions, and places of religious worship. (Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.72.050 PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS. The first violation of this chapter by any person occurring within any twelve-month period shall be punishable as an infraction in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Government Code. The second and all subsequent violations of this chapter by such person occurring within any twelve-month period shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. (Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. © 2008 American Legal Publishing Corporation techsupport@amlegal.com 1.800.445.5588. Page 3 of 3 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title6publichealthandsafety/chapter672... Chapter 4.18 AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES — RESTAURANTS AND BARS Sections: 4.18.010 Definitions. 4.18.020 Exemptions. 4.18.030 Permit required. 4.18.040 Application for permit. 4.18.050 Action by License Collector upon application. 4.18.060 Notification. 4.18.070 Appeal to City Manager—Notice and hearing. 4.18.080 City Manager action upon appeal. 4.18.090 Issuance of permit—Conditions. 4.18.100 Renewal of permit. 4.18.110 Revocation of permit. 4.18.120 Application to existing businesses. 4.18.130 (Repealed by 5394, 9/21/93) 4.18.140 (Repealed by 5394, 9/21/93) 4.18.150 Rules and regulations. 4.18.160 Penalty. 4.18.010 DEFINITIONS. A. “Amusement and Entertainment Premises” means any premises used for a restaurant, coffee shop, bar, nightclub, or establishment serving food, and/or other refreshments and where amusement and entertainment activities are conducted. Anaheim Municipal Code Title 4 BUSINESS REGULATION Chapter 4.18 AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES - RESTAURANTS AND BARS Page 1 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... B. “Amusement and entertainment” means every form of live entertainment including, without limitation, any music, band or orchestra, act, play, burlesque, revue, pantomime, scene, karaoke, song or dance act. “Amusement and entertainment” includes, without limitation, a single event, a series of events, or an ongoing activity or business, occurring alone or as part of another business, to which the public is invited to watch, listen, or participate. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986; Ord. 5810 § 10; April 23, 2002.) 4.18.020 EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of Section 4.18.030 shall not be deemed to require a permit for any of the following: A. Any religious activities taking place on premises regularly used for religious purposes. B. Activities or events held or conducted by the City of Anaheim or by a school, college, or school district. C. Any activity or event that comes within the provisions of this chapter solely by reason of its taking place on property owned or occupied by the City of Anaheim shall not require a permit pursuant to this chapter if the persons or organizations holding or conducting the event shall have obtained a permit, license, lease, or agreement to use the premises from the City of Anaheim. D. Recreational and entertainment centers where at least fifteen percent of the annual attendance at any such center is composed of persons residing outside the State of California and the average annual attendance of such center is at least five million persons. E. Entertainment conducted in connection with a regularly established recreation park, circus or fairground. F. Entertainment conducted by or sponsored by any club, society or association, organized and incorporated for benevolent charitable, dramatic or literary purposes having an established membership and which holds meetings other than such entertainment at regular intervals, when proceeds, if any, arising from such entertainment are used for the purposes of such club, society or association. G. Entertainment providing music for patrons to dance in connection with any dance where a valid dance permit is in full force in effect under Section 4.16.020 of this Code. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986: Ord. 5265 § 2; November 5, 1991; Ord. 5526 § 7; October 3, 1995.) 4.18.030 PERMIT REQUIRED. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to hold or conduct or operate, within the City of Anaheim, amusement and entertainment premises subject to the provisions of this chapter and not expressly exempt hereunder without having a valid permit issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, except that amusement and entertainment premises subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.89 of this Code shall be required to obtain a sex-oriented business permit in lieu of the permit required by this chapter. B. The holding or conducting of any event or activity subject to the provisions of this chapter without a valid permit issued therefor pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, unless expressly exempt hereunder, is declared a public nuisance. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986; Ord. 5399 § 3; October 5, 1993.) Page 2 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... 4.18.040 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. A. Applications for permits pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the License Collector on forms provided by her/him and shall include a nonrefundable application fee in an amount designated by resolution of the City Council and, at least, the following information: 1. The legal name, address and telephone number of the person, partnership, association, or corporation submitting the application; 2. The business name, address and telephone number under which the activity will be conducted; 3. The residence address and telephone number of the proprietor, partners, or principal officers of the association or corporation making application; 4. The exact nature and location of the activity for which the permit is requested and an estimate of the numbers of persons who would attend the event(s); 5. The time period, not to exceed one year, for which the permit is requested; 6. A security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and prevention of unlawful conduct by employees and patrons (such as assaults, vandalism, littering, theft, sale or use of controlled substances, and consumption of alcohol by persons under twenty-one years of age) within the building(s) and outside in the areas affected by the public attending the event; provided, however, that this requirement shall be excused in the case of a noncommercial activity or event to which the public is invited free of charge and which event shall not be in conjunction with any other commercial activity; 7. A plan for control of noise affecting nearby premises, with special attention to prevention of noise nuisance to nearby residences, if any; 8. Whether or not any alcoholic beverages will be sold or served; 9. A description of the type of entertainment; 10. The date(s), and hours of the entertainment; 11. Such other information pertaining to public health and safety as may be required by the License Collector and, in addition, any information that the applicant may wish to include. B. Submitting false information on the application shall constitute grounds for denial of the permit. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.050 ACTION BY LICENSE COLLECTOR UPON APPLICATION. .010 Upon the filing of an application, the License Collector shall determine whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, the License Collector shall, within two business days, give written notice by mail or personal delivery to the applicant advising that the application is incomplete and cannot be acted upon. The notice shall state what information is needed to complete the application. Page 3 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... .020 Upon the filing of a completed application, the License Collector or designee shall conduct an appropriate investigation, including consultation with the Police, Fire and Planning Departments and inspection of the premises as needed. Within fifteen business days after receipt of a completed application, the License Collector or designee shall either grant or deny the application. .030 An application for an entertainment permit pursuant to this chapter shall be granted for a period not to exceed one year, with or without conditions, unless it is found and determined that issuance of the permit would allow such amusement or entertainment to be held or conducted: .0301 In violation of any provisions of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code or in violation of any other federal, state or city law or laws; or .0302 In a building or structure which is hazardous to the health or safety of the employees or patrons of the business, activity, or event, or the general public, under the standards established by the Uniform Building or Fire Codes; or .0303 On premises which lack adequate on-site parking area for employees and the public attending the proposed event or activity, under the standards set forth in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, except for existing uses that are legal and nonconforming with respect to parking; or .0304 In a manner in which proposed security measures are inadequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by the entertainment activity or by patrons entering or leaving the premises where the entertainment activity takes place. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986: Ord. 5327 § 1; August 25, 1992.) 4.18.060 NOTIFICATION. .0601 The License Collector shall give written notice to the applicant of the action taken upon the completed application within fifteen business days after receipt of the completed application. .0602 In the event the application is denied, written notice of such denial shall be given to the applicant specifying the grounds for such denial. The notice shall also advise the applicant of this right to appeal the denial of his application and shall state the last date on which an appeal may be filed, which shall be the fifteenth day after the date on which the notice was deposited in the mail or was personally delivered to the applicant. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986: Ord. 5327 § 2; August 25, 1992.) 4.18.070 APPEAL TO CITY MANAGER — NOTICE AND HEARING. A. An applicant whose application for an Amusement and Entertainment permit has been denied or has been granted conditionally may appeal such decision directly to the City Manager or his designee by filing an appeal with the License Collector. The time within which such a written appeal may be filed shall expire at the end of the fifteenth day after the date on which notice to the applicant of the action on his application is personally delivered or deposited in the mail. B. Upon the filing of a timely appeal, the City Manager or his designee shall set a hearing to be held within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of such appeal. The applicant, by written request, may waive the time limits set forth in this section except the time within which an appeal may be filed. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); Page 4 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... May 6, 1986.) 4.18.080 CITY MANAGER ACTION UPON APPEAL. After an administrative hearing and consideration of the report and recommendation of the License Collector and any written materials submitted by the applicant or other persons, the City Manager or his designee shall either grant the permit for a period not to exceed one year, with or without conditions, or shall deny the permit upon finding that issuance thereof would result in any of the circumstances set forth in Section 4.18.050 of this chapter. The decision of the City Manager or his designee on any such permit shall be final. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.090 ISSUANCE OF PERMIT — CONDITIONS. A. After the permit application has been granted and the applicant notified, the License Collector or designee shall issue the permit, for the period requested, but not to exceed one year. B. The permit shall be issued upon such conditions as may be required to ensure compliance with City regulations governing the matters contained in the application. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.100 RENEWAL OF PERMIT. A. An unrevoked permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be renewed for successive periods of one year each upon written application to the License Collector made at least thirty calendar days before the expiration date of the current, valid permit and payment of a nonrefundable permit renewal application fee. For good cause, the License Collector may extend the time for filing a renewal application for up to ninety days and may extend the prior permit pending decision on the renewal application. B. The application for renewal shall supply current information with respect to each category of information required in the initial application. C. The License Collector shall grant the renewal application if it is timely filed, with the applicable fee, and all the required information, unless he/she finds and determines that renewal of the permit would result in any of the circumstances set forth in Section 4.18.050 of this chapter. In the event that the permit is renewed, all conditions to which the initial permit was subject shall remain in force unless specifically deleted or modified, and additional conditions as described in Section 4.18.090 may be attached, if required, in the judgment of the License Collector. Notice of the granting or denial of the renewal application, and of any additional conditions, shall be mailed or personally delivered to the applicant in the same manner and within the same time limits as apply to initial applications. D. The decision of the License Collector to deny the renewal of a permit or to impose additional conditions may be appealed to the City Manager or his designee in the same manner and within the same time limits as a decision upon an initial application for a permit. E. After the filing of a timely application for renewal of a permit, the original or existing permit shall remain in effect until fifteen working days after notice of the action upon the application has been mailed or personally delivered to the permittee or until the expiration date of the original or existing permit, whichever is later; provided, however, that if a timely appeal is filed, the original or existing permit shall remain in effect until Page 5 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... the City Manager or his designee has acted upon the appeal. The decision of the City Manager or his designee on any such appeal shall be final. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.110 REVOCATION OF PERMIT. A. Any permit issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be revoked by the City Manager or his designee on the basis of any of the following: 1. That the business or activity has been conducted in a manner which violates one or more of the conditions imposed upon the issuance of the permit or which fails to conform to the plans and procedures described in the application, or which violates the occupant load limits set by the Fire Department; 2. That the permittee has failed to obtain or to maintain all required City, County and State licenses and permits; 3. That the permit is being used to conduct an activity different from that for which it was issued; 4. That the permittee has misrepresented any material fact in the application for permit or has not answered each question therein truthfully; 5. That the permittee has failed to comply with one or more of the required conditions and has failed to cure such noncompliance after reasonable notice thereof; 6. That the building or structure in which the permitted event or activity is held or conducted, or is to be held or conducted, is hazardous to the health or safety of the employees or patrons of the business, activity, or event, or of the general public, under the standards set forth in the Uniform Building or Fire Code; 7. That the permitted event or activity creates sound levels which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim; 8. That the security measures provided are inadequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises where the entertainment activity takes place. B. Written notice of hearing on the proposed permit revocation, together with written notification of the specific grounds of complaint against the business or activity of the permittee, shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail to the permittee at least ten days prior to the hearing. C. In the event a permit is revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, another permit shall not be granted to the permittee within twelve months after the date of such revocation. The City Manager's or his designee's determination following a public revocation hearing shall be based upon written findings and shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.120 APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUSINESSES. A. Any business or other entity that was lawfully engaged in providing amusement or entertainment within the meaning of this chapter and was the holder of a permit issued by the City Council pursuant to former Section Page 6 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... 4.18.010 before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, shall apply for a new permit pursuant to Section 4.18.020 hereof at least thirty days before the scheduled expiration date of the existing permit, and in that case the existing permit shall remain in effect until the application has been acted upon and the decision thereon has become final. B. Any other business or entity that was lawfully engaged in providing amusement or entertainment within the meaning of this chapter before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall apply for a permit pursuant to Section 4.18.020 hereof within sixty days of the passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter and may continue to provide amusement or entertainment of the same nature as previously, in conformity to all other applicable City, State, and federal laws, until the application has been acted upon and the decision thereon has become final. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.130 (Repealed by 5394, 9/21/93) 4.18.140 (Repealed by 5394, 9/21/93) 4.18.150 RULES AND REGULATIONS. The City of Anaheim may establish reasonable administrative rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this chapter. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be made available to applicants by the License Collector. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) 4.18.160 PENALTY. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of the provisions of the chapter is committed. (Ord. 4710 § 2 (part); May 6, 1986.) Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any other documents that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality. American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally, the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site, please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. © 2008 American Legal Publishing Corporation techsupport@amlegal.com 1.800.445.5588. Page 7 of 7 3/5/2009http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/title4businessregulation/chapter418am... DINNER THEATER NOISE LEVELSDINNER THEATER NOISE LEVELSDINNER THEATER NOISE LEVELSDINNER THEATER NOISE LEVELS Assumptions Based on noise levels from a nightclub 1 Peak interior noise levels at a nightclub 115 dBA Lmax Note: Corresponds to the maximum permitted noise exposure of workers permited by the Department of Labor. Average (maximum) interior noise levels at a nightclub (Range: 83.7 to 97.1 dBA)97.1 dBA Leq Source: Lawrence, Nancy and Turrentine, Andrew. American Society of Safety Engineers. 2008, Winter. Examination of Noise Hazards for Employees in Bar Environments . Journal of SH&E Research, Volume 5, No. 3. 2 Typical Interior-Exterior noise reduction (windows/doors closed)24 dBA Typical Interior-Exterior noise reduction (windows/doors open)12 dBA Source: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise . AIR 1081 3 Exterior noise level at building structure (doors closed)91 dBA Lmax 73.1 dBA Leq Exterior noise level at building structure (doors open)103 dBA Lmax 85.1 dBA Leq Assumes average distance of the bartenders from the speakers is 25 feet for calculations. 4 Approximate distance to open door of dinner thater 226 feet 5 Exterior Noise levels at residences (doors closed)41 dBA Lmax 52 dBA Leq Exterior Noise levels at residences (doors open)53 dBA Lmax 64 dBA Leq Parking Lot NoiseParking Lot NoiseParking Lot NoiseParking Lot Noise Assumptions: 1 There is a 1,000 person capacity 1,000 total people 2 It is anticipated that as many as two-thirds of the people could be outside at any one time.667 people outside 3 It is anticipated that, on average, one in four people are talking at any given time.167 people talking 4 There are 210 on-site parking spaces 100%Distance to Residential 117 spaces west of the nightclub 56%386 Feet 57 spaces north/south of nightclub 27%170 Feet 36 spaces on the eastern side of the night club 17%122 Feet 5 A person talking in a raised voise at 4 feet is measures at 69 dBA Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1973, July 27. P ublic Health and Welfare Criteria For Noise . 550/9-73-002 6 Number of people talking west of the nightclub in the parking lot 93 people Number of people talking north/south of the nightclub in the parking lot 45 people Number of people talking east of the nightclub in the parking lot 29 people 7 Calculation for 93 people talking at any one time at 4 feet 89 dBA Leq Calculation for 45 people talking at any one time at 4 feet 86 dBA Leq Calculation for 29 people talking at any one time at 4 feet 84 dBA Leq 8 Calculation for 93 people talking at any one time at 386 feet 49 dBA Leq Calculation for 45 people talking at any one time at 170 feet 53 dBA Leq Calculation for 29 people talking at any one time at 122 feet 54 dBA Leq 9 Total summation of all people talking at Residences to East 57575757 dBA LeqdBA LeqdBA LeqdBA Leq 10 Interior Noise Levels (assumes 24 dBA reduction)33 dBA Leq Source: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise . AIR 1081 Truck Idling and Passby Noise Levels TRUCK IDLING Reference Level Noise levels at 50 feet Medium Duty Truck 68 dBA Leq Distance (feet)Medium Duty Truck Noise 50 68 dBA Leq 200 56 dBA Leq Source of reference level: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998, February. FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM) Technical Manual. FHWA-PD-96-010. Based on A-weighted sound-level emissions from heavy and medium duty trucks in cruise throttle. NOISE LEVELS FROM HVAC UNITS Sound Presssure = Sound Power - 10*log(2*3.14*d^2) +10 HVAC Model* Unit Lw (Sound Power) dBA (Sound Pressure) at 25 feet 105 EF-1 68 42 30 EF-2 55 29 17 EF-3 57 31 19 EF-4 74 48 36 EF-5 69 43 31 KEF-6 73 47 35 KEF-7 74 48 36 HREF-1 87 61 49 HREF-2 88 62 50 HREF-6 90 64 52 HREF-7 90 64 52 HREF-8 88 62 50 HREF-10 90 64 52 HREF-11 80 54 42 HREF-12 90 64 52 HREF-13 90 64 52 HREF-14 85 59 47 HREF-15 88 62 50 RTU-1 93 67 55 RTU-2 92 66 54 RTU-3 94 68 56 RTU-4 82 56 44 RTU-5 82 56 44 RTU-6 94 68 56 RTU-7 81 55 43 RTU-8 94 68 56 RTU-9 77 51 39 RTU-10 81 55 43 RTU-11 80 54 42 RTU-12 82 56 44 RTU-13 82 56 44 RTU-14 94 68 56 RTU-15 81 55 43 range max 68 56 range min 29 17 .* Source: SSA Acoustics. 2009. Assessment of Environmental Noise Produced by Site Mechanical Equipment Fleet Mix Assumptions for Noise Modeling Caltrans Fleet Mix: State Route 22 at Harbor Boulevard (Caltrans 2009) Vehicle Auto 95.3% Medium Truck 3.2% Heavy Truck 1.5% 58 L VEHICLE TRUCK TRUCK TRUCK AADT TOTAL % TRUCK AADT EAL YEAR POST E AADT AADT % TOT ------- By Axle ------ ------ By Axle ------ 2-WAY VER/ RTE DIST CNTY MILE G DESCRIPTION TOTAL TOTAL VEH 2 3 4 5+ 2 3 4 5+ (1000) EST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 022 07 LA 0 A LONG BEACH, JCT. RTE. 63000 1367 2.17 1053 115 14 186 77 8.4 1.01 13.59 114 06V 1, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 022 12 ORA R.65 B JCT. RTE. 405 96000 2496 2.6 1922 210 25 339 77 8.4 1.01 13.59 207 06E 022 12 ORA R.66 A JCT. RTE. 405 138000 12006 8.7 8152 1585 696 1573 67.9 13.2 5.8 13.1 1076 81E 022 12 ORA R3.587 B GARDEN GROVE, JCT. 156000 7644 4.9 5228 994 436 986 68.4 13 5.7 12.9 679 82E RTE. 39 022 12 ORA R3.587 A GARDEN GROVE, JCT. 185000 9065 4.9 6228 1124 499 1215 68.7 12.4 5.5 13.4 814 82E RTE. 39 022 12 ORA R7.829 B GARDEN GROVE, HARBOR 212000 10176 4.8 6971 1282 600 1323 68.5 12.6 5.9 13 907 82E BOULEVARD 022 12 ORA R7.829 A GARDEN GROVE, HARBOR 228000 10716 4.7 7265 1361 622 1468 67.8 12.7 5.8 13.7 977 82E BOULEVARD 022 12 ORA R10.478 B SANTA ANA, JCT. RTES. 251000 11295 4.5 7647 1502 576 1570 67.7 13.3 5.1 13.9 1032 82E 5 AND 57; SANTA ANA/ ORANGE FREEWAYS 022 12 ORA R10.478 A SANTA ANA, JCT. RTES. 143000 6435 4.5 3842 1023 495 1075 59.7 15.9 7.7 16.7 672 82E 5 AND 57; SANTA ANA/ ORANGE FREEWAYS 022 12 ORA R13.164 B JCT. RTE. 55, COSTA 118000 4012 3.4 2335 610 253 814 58.2 15.2 6.3 20.3 456 82V MESA FREEWAY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model FRIDAY d24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline eeFuture Future Existing Future No Project Future With Project Change Change pWithout With 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 From due to Roadway Segment SExisting Project Project Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Existing Project Orangewood Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 40 18,300 18,300 18,300 71.2 279 130 60 71.2 279 130 60 71.2 279 130 60 0.0 0.0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 40 19,900 19,900 20,000 71.6 295 137 64 71.6 295 137 64 71.6 296 138 64 0.0 0.0 Wilken Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 25 1,500 1,500 1,500 56.8 31 14 7 56.8 31 14 7 56.8 31 14 7 0.0 0.0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 25 2,400 2,400 2,400 58.9 42 20 9 58.9 42 20 9 58.9 42 20 9 0.0 0.0 Hotel Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 40 2,400 2,400 2,400 62.4 72 33 16 62.4 72 33 16 62.4 72 33 16 0.0 0.0 Chapman Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 40 32,200 32,200 32,300 73.7 407 189 88 73.7 407 189 88 73.7 408 189 88 0.0 0.0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 40 31,200 31,200 31,300 73.5 399 185 86 73.5 399 185 86 73.5 399 185 86 0.0 0.0 Harbor Boulevard n/o Orangewood 40 39,100 39,100 39,300 74.5 463 215 100 74.5 463 215 100 74.5 465 216 100 0.0 0.0 btwn Orangewood and Wilken 40 42,300 42,300 42,600 74.8 488 227 105 74.8 488 227 105 74.9 491 228 106 0.0 0.0 btwn Wilken and Hotel Way 40 36,700 36,700 37,000 74.2 444 206 96 74.2 444 206 96 74.3 447 207 96 0.0 0.0 btwn Hotel Way and Chapman 40 37,600 37,600 37,900 74.3 451 210 97 74.3 451 210 97 74.4 454 211 98 0.0 0.0 s/o Chapman 40 33,800 33,800 33,900 73.9 420 195 91 73.9 420 195 91 73.9 421 196 91 0.0 0.0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assumptions:Based on the Traffic Analysis completed by Kunzman Associates (2010). Speed Limits obtained from the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and Google Earth, Street View 0.0 Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters=20.0 future 6.1 meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes:Analysis of L.A. County 24-hour traffic counts for selected arterial streets Fleet Mix based on: Caltrans. 2009. 2008 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System Day 70%LDA 95% Evening 15%MDT 3% Site parameter:0.0 Night 15%HDT 2% HALFSEP 1/2 lane separation 6.1 HALFSEPFUT 1/2 lane separation (future)6.1 Lane separation:2 ___ ___4 ___ ___ ___ ___ consider + + + <--------> + moving lanes only 6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ + <-------------> + 8 + ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ + <-----------------> + California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr:51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr:50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr:straight line interpolation between above two curves Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model SATURDAY d24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline eeFuture Future Existing Future No Project Future With Project Change Change pWithout With 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 From due to Roadway Segment SExisting Project Project Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Existing Project Orangewood Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 40 11,400 11,400 11,500 69.2 204 95 44 69.2 204 95 44 69.2 205 95 44 0.0 0.0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 40 11,900 11,900 12,100 69.3 210 97 45 69.3 210 97 45 69.4 212 98 46 0.1 0.1 Wilken Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 25 1,400 1,400 1,400 56.5 29 14 6 56.5 29 14 6 56.5 29 14 6 0.0 0.0 w/o Harbor Boulevard 25 1,600 1,600 1,600 57.1 32 15 7 57.1 32 15 7 57.1 32 15 7 0.0 0.0 Hotel Way e/o Harbor Boulevard 25 5,000 5,000 5,000 62.1 69 32 15 62.1 69 32 15 62.1 69 32 15 0.0 0.0 Chapman Avenue e/o Harbor Boulevard 40 24,100 24,100 24,400 72.4 336 156 72 72.4 336 156 72 72.5 338 157 73 0.1 0.1 w/o Harbor Boulevard 40 25,900 25,900 26,200 72.7 352 163 76 72.7 352 163 76 72.8 355 165 76 0.1 0.1 Harbor Boulevard n/o Orangewood 40 35,200 35,200 35,500 74.0 432 200 93 74.0 432 200 93 74.1 434 202 94 0.0 0.0 btwn Orangewood and Wilken 40 39,000 39,000 39,500 74.5 463 215 100 74.5 463 215 100 74.5 466 217 100 0.1 0.1 btwn Wilken and Hotel Way 40 33,700 33,700 34,200 73.9 420 195 90 73.9 420 195 90 73.9 424 197 91 0.1 0.1 btwn Hotel Way and Chapman 40 35,400 35,400 35,900 74.1 434 201 93 74.1 434 201 93 74.1 438 203 94 0.1 0.1 s/o Chapman 40 30,000 30,000 30,200 73.4 388 180 84 73.4 388 180 84 73.4 390 181 84 0.0 0.0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Assumptions:Based on the Traffic Analysis completed by Kunzman Associates (2010). Speed Limits obtained from the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and Google Earth, Street View 0.1 Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters=20.0 future 6.1 meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes:Analysis of L.A. County 24-hour traffic counts for selected arterial streets Fleet Mix based on: Caltrans. 2009. 2008 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System Day 70%LDA 95% Evening 15%MDT 3% Site parameter:0.0 Night 15%HDT 2% HALFSEP 1/2 lane separation 6.1 HALFSEPFUT 1/2 lane separation (future)6.1 Lane separation:2 ___ ___4 ___ ___ ___ ___ consider + + + <--------> + moving lanes only 6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ + <-------------> + 8 + ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ + <-----------------> + California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr:51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr:50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr:straight line interpolation between above two curves Appendix Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim Appendix D Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study City of Anaheim Appendix E Water Consumption Table for Medieval Times Appendix The Planning Center June 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix E: Water Consumption Rates for Medieval Times City of Buena Park - Water Consumption Rates for Medieval Times Meter Read Date Consumption (in thousands of gallons) 2/1/2010 789.00 12/3/2009 777.00 10/7/2009 1,197.00 8/5/2009 1,412.00 6/3/2009 1,236.00 4/1/2009 782.00 2/3/2009 817.00 12/4/2008 856.00 10/10/2008 1,164.00 8/6/2008 1,228.00 6/4/2008 1,108.00 4/2/2008 935.00 2/6/2008 990.00 11/28/2007 1,015.00 9/26/2007 1,176.00 7/26/2007 1,402.00 5/22/2007 1,312.00 3/19/2007 1,239.00 1/18/2007 1,447.00 11/8/2006 1,354.00 9/5/2006 1,575.00 7/5/2006 1,485.00 5/2/2006 1,252.00 3/1/2006 1,326.00 Bi-Monthly Average: 1,161.42 thousand gallons Monthly Average:580.71 thousand gallons 580,710.00 gallons Yearly Average:6,968,520.00 gallons 21.39 AFY AFY:10.7 Gallons/year: 3,484,260 Since the Medieval Times restaurant is a little more than twice the size as the proposed restaurant, the total water demands is cut in half. Based on this, the proposed project would generate approximately: Source: City of Buena Park, Water Services Department. April 2010. Consumption History for Medieval Times Dinner Theater (2-28-06 through 2-1-10). DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 158 FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD BATTLE OF THE DANCE MND CEQA Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Description: The proposed project includes the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater. The buildings total 43,500 square feet and were formerly occupied by a Toys ‘R Us retail store. The dinner theater would be enclosed in a single building and the project includes modifications to the existing building interior and the building façade, including the application of wall murals. The existing parking area would be repaved and additional landscaped improvements would be added to bring the site into greater conformity with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including the addition of new landscaped planters around the perimeter of the site. Dinner theater shows would occur seven days a week and the theatre would also offer food service, including the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. The proposed dinner theater with murals is permitted with a conditional use permit and final site plan. Further, the proposed parking lot landscape improvements to a non-conforming site are also permitted by a conditional use permit in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Project Location: The project site is located on a 4.8-acre project site on the east of Harbor Boulevard and south of Wilken Way (2232 South Harbor Boulevard) in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is part of the 1,078-acre Anaheim Resort, which encompasses three adopted specific plans: the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. The General Plan land use designation for site is commercial recreation. Terms and Definitions: 1. Property Owner/Developer – Owner or developer of Battle of the Dance property. 2. Environmental Equivalent/Timing - Any mitigation measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental equivalent/timing" and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City's adopted Fee Schedule. ATTACHMENT NO. 7 3. Timing - This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur, as routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is "to be shown on approved building plans" subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance. 4. Responsibility for Monitoring - Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. Outside public agency review is limited to those public agencies specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan which have permit authority in conjunction with the mitigation measure. 5. Ongoing Mitigation Measures - The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year demonstrating how compliance with the subject measure(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored "Ongoing During Construction", the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring; monitoring will be discontinued after construction is complete. A final annual letter will be provided at the close of construction. 6. Building Permit - For purposes of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building, but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building. MMP 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion SECTION I− AESTHETICS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measure Prior to issuance of each building permit, MM I-1 The property owner/developer shall submit plans that detail the lighting systems for any parking facilities adjacent to residential or other light-sensitive uses. The system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, the requirement has been met. Planning Department, Planning Division SECTION II − AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTION III − AIR QUALITY No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. SECTION IV − BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTION V − CULTURAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. SECTION VI − GEOLOGY AND SOILS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. SECTION VII- GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. SECTION VIII − HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures identified. SECTION IX− HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features Mitigation Measures Prior to site construction , MM IX-1 The amount of total impervious surface square footage disturbance must be determined by the property owner/developer. In the event that construction activities disturb more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, or that any other criteria requiring the need for a WQMP are met as detailed in Section XII.B. of the current Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030), a WQMP must be prepared. The water quality management plan (WQMP) must identify a program for the implementation of specific structural and nonstructural BMPs to address water Public Works, Development Services Division MMP 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion quality issues so that predictable runoff is controlled. The WQMP will identify the location and type of structural BMPs that “infiltrate, filter, or treat” either the volume or flow rate of stormwater runoff. A final detailed site plan and WQMP must be approved by the City Engineer. SECTION X − LAND USE No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTION XI − MINERAL RESOURCES No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTION XII − NOISE No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance a building permit, MM XII-1 The property owner/developer shall design the building to reduce noise intrusion to 60 dBA L eq or less at the property line to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. Emergency doors at the building exterior shall be double-insulated to prevent interior–exterior noise transmission. These design features shall be noted on all building plans. Code Enforcement Division; Building Division (verification of notes on plans) Ongoing during project operation, MM XII-2 The manager of the Battle of the Dance shall ensure that emergency doors located at the rear of the building are kept closed at all times during the operation of the dinner theater. Code Enforcement) Ongoing during project operation, MM XII-3 With enforcement by the City of Anaheim, the onsite manager shall monitor shuttle bus idling along Harbor Boulevard to ensure they are compliant with CARB Rule Section 2485, which prohibits commercial motor vehicles from idling their primary diesel engines for more than five minutes at any location. Code Enforcement Prior to issuance of building permit, MM XII-4 The property owner/developer shall design a security plan for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and a plan for control of noise affecting nearby residences, as required by City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 4.18, Amusement and Planning Department, Code Enforcement and Traffic Engineering MMP 5 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Entertainment Premises – Restaurants and Bars. Ongoing during project construction and operation MM XII-5 Construction activities, deliveries, and haul trucks shall be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or a federal holiday for the duration of the construction period. Code Enforcement Prior to construction MM XII-6 Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emissions. Code Enforcement Prior to and on-going during construction MM XII-7 Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer Code Enforcement Prior to and on-going during construction MM XII-8 During construction, the construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas a minimum of 50 feet from adjacent residential land uses. Code Enforcement Prior to the start of construction MM XII-9 The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of construction contractor to respond in the event of a noise complaint. Code Enforcement SECTION XIV −POPULATION AND HOUSING No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTIONX V - -RECREATION No applicable Standard Conditions, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures are identified. SECTION XVI − TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC No applicable Standard Conditions or Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to final building and zoning inspection, MM XVI-1 Implement the site-specific circulation and access recommendations as shown in Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation MMP 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Figure 18, Onsite Circulation Recommendations. Division Prior to the issuance of a building permit MM XVI-2 The property owner/developer shall submit a Parking Management Plan to the Planning department and City Traffic and Transportation manager for review and approval. Traffic and Transportation Division; Planning Department, Prior to final building and zoning inspection, MM XVI-3 The developer shall submit street improvement plans to improve Harbor Boulevard, including planting and irrigation for the public parkway to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. Tree wells shall be constructed with the irrigation connected to the private irrigation system. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a bond to guarantee that the improvements are constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection. [Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.080.060]. Public Works Development Services Prior to the issuance of a building permit MM XVI-4 Sight distances at the project accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer with respect to City of Anaheim standards. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division; Prior to final building and zoning inspection, MM XVI-5 Onsite traffic signaling and striping shall be implement in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division Prior to commencement of project MM XVI-6 Developer shall provide a striped median on Harbor Boulevard prohibiting left turns southbound. The developer shall also provide the City of Anaheim with their fair share amount for the construction of future raised median on Harbor Blvd. Such amount, shall consider only the linear footage fronting the subject property and shall be credited towards Traffic Impact fees. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division On-going during project operation MM XVI-7 After building permit issuance, as is the case for any roadway design, the City of Anaheim should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division Shown on plans submitted for building MMXVI-8 Public Works MMP 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion permit Bus parking spaces shall be clearly indicated on the site plan and located away from any residential or noise-sensitive adjacent land uses. Department, Traffic and Transportation Division Prior to the issuance of a building permit MMXVI-9 The developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management by providing onsite taxi and shuttle bus loading zones and by joining and financially participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Anaheim Resort Transit (ART). The project shall provide a bus bay onsite acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for ART buses to transport guests to and from hotels, tourist attractions, and local airports. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division Prior to commencement of activity MMXVI-10 The Parking Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and the Traffic and Transportation Manager. The Parking Management Plan shall include the Parking Lot Plan required in section 18.116.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and shall include detailed information on how the valet parking program will operate through a valet and access plan, including the location of the loading zone for valet service. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division Shown on plans submitted for building permit MMXVI-11 The project site shall provide code-required parking spaces for the handicapped. Each specifically designated area should be clearly painted and signed. Signs shall be posted to clearly direct the appropriate attendees to the designated handicapped parking spaces. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division On-going during project operation MMXVI-12 Traffic-directing personnel shall be used to direct inbound drivers to empty parking parking segments within a lot, and then to empty parking stalls. A traffic director shall be positioned at the entrance driveway of the lot to be filled next. Another traffic director should be located in the empty parking segment to direct the driver to an empty stall. As the lot fills to capacity, the directors in the lot shall communicate to the Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, Police Department MMP 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion driveway director to start to fill the next area. On-going during project operation MMXVI-13 Traffic-directing personnel shall have brightly colored vests so that they are highly visible for the attendees and for their safety. They should have walkie-talkies to ensure efficient communication. They shall be trained for maximum efficiency and safety. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, Police Department On-going during project operation MMXVI-14 Traffic-directing personnel shall be provided to assist drivers leaving the facility. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, Police Department On-going during project operation MMXVI-15 Valet parking areas shall be provided onsite and utilized in accordance with the Parking Management Plan. These areas shall be appropriately signed and striped. Pedestrian conflicts shall be minimized as much as possible by directing pedestrians to designated pedestrian crossings. During events, manual control could be necessary in the drop-off areas. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, Police Department On-going during project operation MMXVI-16 A follow-up monitoring program shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the parking management plan. Peak periods shall be monitored in order to make changes to the parking management plan to improve operating conditions, if necessary. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, Police Department Prior to final building and zoning inspections MMXVI-17 The City Traffic Engineer shall visit the site once the project is constructed and in full operation and verify that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division, SECTION XVII − UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No applicable Project Design Features are identified. Mitigation Measures Prior to issuance of a building permit, MMXVII-1 The property owner/developer shall pay Anaheim Resort Area water facilities fees in Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division MMP 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion accordance with the Rule 15E of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations ($0.39 per square foot). Prior to start of construction MM XVII-2 All requests for new water service or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit MM XVII-3 The property owner/developer shall indicate on plans the installation of a separate irrigation meter for total landscaped areas exceeding 2,500 square feet. Public Utilities Department Resource Efficiency; Planning Department, Building Division (for verification of inclusion on building plans) Prior to final building and zoning inspection MM XVII-4 The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscape and irrigation plans. Planning Department Prior to final building and zoning inspections, MM XVII-5 The property owner/developer shall install onsite piping with project mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation when it becomes available from the Orange County Sanitation District. Planning Department, ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item.