Loading...
PC 2014/08/25 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, August 25, 2014 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: John Seymour • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman • Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell, Bill Dalati, Victoria Ramirez • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning 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, August 21, 2014, 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 08/25/14 Page 2 of 7 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 08/25/14 Page 3 of 7 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-100 (DEV2014-00027) Location: 441 South Peralta Hills Drive Request: To establish a 2-lot residential subdivision. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) Categorical Exemption. Continued from the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting in order to re-notice the item due to an error in the property description. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 (DEV2014-00066) Location: 1150 North East Street Request: A determination of public convenience or necessity to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in conjunction with an existing grocery store (Northgate Market). Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Amy Vazquez avazquez@anaheim.net 08/25/14 Page 4 of 7 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05742 (DEV2014-00063) Location: 1026 North Tustin Street Request: To permit the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption within an existing restaurant (Top Class Pizza). Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Amy Vazquez avazquez@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00270 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-120 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05704 (DEV2013-00106) Location: 320 North Anaheim Boulevard, 408 – 424 North Anaheim Boulevard, 321 North Claudina Street, and 401 – 417 North Claudina Street, Request: To permit a mixed use commercial development including the following zoning entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to permit the conversion of an existing auto body facility to a neighborhood marketplace to include indoor and outdoor retail stores, restaurants, outdoor dining, on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, and outdoor entertainment and special events; the conversion of two single family homes to offices; the conversion of an existing public street (Adele Street) to a community plaza; and to permit an existing legally nonconforming banquet hall (Landmark) to include the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages; (ii) a reclassification to rezone the properties from the RS-3 (Single Family Residential) and C-G (General Commercial) zones to the MU (Mixed Use) Overlay zone; and (iii) a tentative parcel map to merge seven parcels into one parcel. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Motion Request for Continuance to September 8, 2014 Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net 08/25/14 Page 5 of 7 ITEM NO. 6 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00119 (DEV2014-00073) Location: Citywide Request: A City-initiated amendment to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to: 1) create development standards to allow tandem parking spaces in multiple family residential zones; and, increase the permitted height of single-family residences from 2- stories to 3-stories in the RS-4 (Single Family Residential) Zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the Zoning Code Amendment to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. Motion Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 7 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00263 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 (DEV2014-00009) Location: 2651 West Lincoln Avenue Request: To permit the following zoning entitlements: rezone the property from C-G (General Commercial) Zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone; a conditional use permit to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project with modifications to development standards; and, a tentative tract map for the establishment of a 41-lot single family residential subdivision. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) and per Section 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects). Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 08/25/14 Page 6 of 7 ITEM NO. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730 VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754 (DEV2014-00018) Location: 641-701 South Brookhurst Street Request: To permit the following zoning entitlements: a conditional use permit to construct a 44-unit small–lot single family residential project with modifications to development standards; a variance to allow less parking than required by Code; and, a tentative tract map for the establishment of a 44-lot single family residential subdivision. In addition to the above entitlements, the applicant requests consideration of an appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to deny a deviation from the City’s private street standard pertaining to minimum street width and the provision of parkways and sidewalks. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether Environmental Impact Report No. 330 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2012-00346 (Previously-Certified) are the appropriate environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Motion Request for Continuance to October 6, 2014 Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, September 8, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. 08/25/14 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 5:30 p.m. August 20, 2014 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-100 LOCATION: 441 South Peralta Hills Drive APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Winston Liu with W&W Technologies, Inc. and the property owner is Serge Sachdeva. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map to establish a two-lot residential subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2014-100. BACKGROUND: This 2.2 acre property is located in the "RH-1 (SC)" (Single- Family Hillside Residential Zone, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. The General Plan designates the property for Estate Density Residential land uses. The site is currently vacant and the property is surrounded in all directions by single-family residences. This hearing was continued from the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting to re-notice the hearing to reflect the correct size of the property. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots for the future development of two single-family residences. Lot No. 1 would be 51,554 square feet with an average lot width of 196 feet. Lot No. 2 would be 43,744 square feet with an average lot width of 165 feet. Vehicular access to both lots would be provided from Peralta Hills Drive via a 24-foot wide driveway. Future single-family residences to be developed on the property would be required to meet all development standards of the RH-1 zone. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Commission’s consideration of a tentative parcel map is to review the proposed subdivision for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet and an average lot width of 140 feet in the RH-1 zone. The proposed subdivision complies with these standards. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-100 August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 The subdivision would also be in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which includes the following goals: • Goal 1.1: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods. • Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. • Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding lands uses. • Goal 8.1: Preserve natural, scenic and recreational resources; continue to ensure residential neighborhoods are safe, well-maintained places to live; and continue to provide necessary community services and facilities. CONCLUSION: The proposed subdivision would be in compliance with the goals of the General Plan and complies with the development standards of the RH-1 (SC) Zone. The subdivision would be compatible with the surrounding estate-density residential neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision. Prepared by, Submitted by, Vanessa Norwood Ted White Associate Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Draft Tentative Parcel Map Resolution 3. Applicant’s Request Letter The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at www.anaheim.net/planning. 4. Site Photographs 5. Site Plan 6. Tentative Parcel Map RH-1 (SC)VACANT RH-1 (SC)VACANT RH-1 (SC)VACANT RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCERH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-1 (SC)SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PERALTA HILLS DRE VALLEY G ATE D RE EM B ER W O O D LNS BELLEZA LNS CALLE DANAN.TUSTINAVEE .R IV E R D A LEA VEE .N O H LRANCHRDE .S A N T A AN A C A N Y O N RD S.ROYALOAKRD4 4 1 Sou th Peralta Hills Drive D E V N o. 2014-00027 Subject Property APN: 361-242-14361-252-06 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 12 S PERALTA HILLS DR E VALLEY G ATE D RE EM B ER W O O D LNS BELLEZA LNS CALLE DANAN.TUSTINAVEE .R IV E R D A LEA VEE .N O H LRANCHRDE .S A N T A AN A C A N Y O N RD S.ROYALOAKRD4 4 1 Sou th Peralta Hills Drive D E V N o. 2014-00027 Subject Property APN: 361-242-14361-252-06 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 12 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2014-100 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00027) (441 SOUTH PERALTA HILLS DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2014- 100 to subdivide one parcel into two parcels (herein referred to as the "Parcel Map") for certain real property located at 441 South Peralta Hills Drive in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently vacant and consists of approximately 2.2 acres. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Estate Density Residential land uses. The Property is located within the "RH-1" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The Property is also located within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Section 18.18.060 (Single-Family Residential Zones – Standards) of Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply to the Property in addition to, and where inconsistent shall supersede, any site development standards contained in Chapter 18.04 (Single Family Residential Zones) for the “RH-1” Single- Family Hillside Residential Zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against the proposed Parcel Map, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposed Parcel Map is within that class of projects which consists of the division of property meeting the conditions described in Section 15315 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines"); that is, (a) consists of the division of property in an urban area zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, (b) no variances are required, (c) all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, (d) the existing parcel was not involved in the division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and (d) the existing parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent at the time of this determination. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Parcel Map will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and - 1 - PC2014-*** 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2014-100, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed division, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Estate Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and, the zoning and development standards of the “RH-1”Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; and 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Parcel Map in conformance with the development standards of the “RH-1”(Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; and 3. The design of the division is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified in the vicinity; and 4. The design of the division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems since it the property will be developed with two single-family residential buildings in conformance with the development standards of the “RH-1”Single- Family Hillside Residential Zone and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and the Property is currently surrounded by single-family residential homes; and 5. The design of the division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2014-100, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation 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 Code. - 2 - PC2014-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. 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, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 3 - PC2014-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2014-*** - 5 - PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-100 (DEV2014-00027) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 1 Prior to or concurrently with grading plans approval, the applicant shall apply for a right-of-way construction permit from the Department of Public Works for all wall work in Peralta Hills Drive. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 2 A Save Harmless agreement in-lieu of an Encroachment Agreement is required to be executed, approved by the City and recorded by the applicant on the property for any storm drains connecting to a City storm drain. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 3 The applicant shall record a drainage agreement as required per the approved site drainage configuration. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 4 The applicant shall record in the Orange County Recorder’s Office a covenant to maintain the slope and wall landscaping and irrigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Development Services Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 5 The final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 6 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities such as private sewer, private street, and private storm drain improvements; compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan; and a maintenance exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include all drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation on Euclid Avenue, the private street name sign and the Private Street. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 7 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through water engineering division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering - 6 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 8 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current water services standards specifications. any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. the owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering 9 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO WATER ENGINEERING 10 The developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division review and approval. the master plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the project’s water demands and fire protection requirements. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering 11 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. this information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with rule no. 15a.6 of The Water Utility Rates, Rules, And Regulations. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering 12 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities, Water Eengineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering 13 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved By City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering 14 The owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants, including a five foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad, (ii) a twenty foot wide easement for all water service laterals to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering - 7 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement, and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&R’s for the project. 15 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained between proposed water main and other facilities: • 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals • 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities, including storm drains, gas, and electric • 6-feet minimum separation from curb face PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 16 Electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications shall be submitted to the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department to establish electrical service. Public Utilities – Electrical Engineering PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 17 The legal property owner shall execute an unsubordinated Subdivision Improvement Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete any required public improvements at the legal property owner’s expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section for approval by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then shall be filed in the Office of the Orange County Recorder upon approval by City Council. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 18 Lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 19 Vehicular access rights to Peralta Hills Drive, except at the private driveway opening, shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 20 The legal property owner shall post a security and execute a Subdivision Agreement to complete the required public improvements at the legal owner’s expense in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section for approval by the City Council. Public Works Department, Development Services Division - 8 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 21 Any frontage fence or wall shall be designed to allow the minimum line of sight clear zone as shown in Engineering Standard Detail 115- B. No object more than 24 inches in height shall be in the required clear zone. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 22 An improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map to indicate that all required public water improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections as directed by the Public Utilities Director for future building or grading site development plans. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 23 The applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non- structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available onsite. Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 24 All required street, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and drainage improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services inspector. Public Works Department, Development Services Division ON-GOING AND OPERATIONAL 25 The owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or city easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of city owned water facilities. provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded master CC & R’S for the project and the city easement deeds. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering - 9 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT GENERAL 26 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 27 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 28 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 29 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, and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 10 - PC2014-*** W&W Land Design Consultants, Inc. 2335 W Foothill Blvd., Suite 1, Upland, CA 91786 Civil engineering, Subdivision, Land planning Phone: (909) 608-7118 Fax: (909) 946-1137 Mrs. Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 (714) 765-4934 Phone July 23, 2014 Subject: Letter of Request for Subdivision, APN: 361-242-14 & 361-252-06 Project Located at 441 South Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA Mrs. Vanessa Norwood: We are requesting to subdivide the above project that is about 2.20 ± acres into two parcels. We hope to receive approval for this subdivision soon. We appreciate your assistance on this matter. Thank you, Winston Liu, PE Principal Engineer ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 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. ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 LOCATION: 1150 North East Street (Northgate Market) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The agent is Adam Wood with Curt Pringle & Associates, representing the applicant and owner, Northgate Market. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption (Type 21 – Off-Sale General) within an existing grocery store. The store currently sells beer and wine with a Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) license. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and approving Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00108. BACKGROUND: This 1.5-acre property is developed with a commercial retail center that includes the 14,290 square foot Northgate Market grocery store. The property is in the C-G (General Commercial) zone. The General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses. The property is surrounded by a commercial building to the north, single family residences to the east across Briarwood Street, apartments to the south, and a water retention basin to the west across East Street. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval to upgrade an existing Off-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 20) license to an Off-Sale General (Type 21) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for the Northgate Market grocery store. The ratio of alcohol, beer and wine sales would be a small percentage of the overall retail sales activity of the store. Less than five percent of the floor area would be allocated for alcoholic beverage display purposes. No exterior changes to the existing building are proposed. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS: The sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores over 10,000 square feet in size is permitted by right in the C-G zone. However, a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is required in this instance because there is an over-concentration of off-sale licenses in the Census tract and the crime rate is above the City average. State law limits the issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses when a license is requested for a property located in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an over- concentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. However, the law also states that such restrictions can be waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the proposed outlet would serve "public convenience or necessity." This property is located within Census Tract No. 864.04, which has a population of 6,546. Three off- sale licenses are permitted based on this population, and currently there are five licenses in the tract. One of these licenses is the Beer and Wine license associated with this grocery store. Another license is associated with a liquor store that operates in the shopping center. The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1426, which has a crime rate that is 38% above the citywide average. There have been 34 calls for service to this location in the past year in response to two petty thefts, two suspicious subjects, three burglar alarms, one stolen vehicle recovery, one brandishing a firearm, two fights, five trespassing, two disturbances and 16 drinking in public. The majority of these calls were reported to the Police Department by Northgate Market security guards and employees in an effort to maintain a safe shopping experience for the community. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this property is 97% above the citywide average based upon calls for service. These calls consisted of 20 simple assaults, 19 petty thefts, 19 grand theft automobiles and 12 driving under the influence. According to the applicant, Northgate Market conducts an alcohol sales training program for employees that details California law governing the sale of alcohol. This training is required for all cashiers and managers and includes annual re-training. In addition, the store has implemented several measures to deter crime and further ensure that alcohol will not create a nuisance for the surrounding area. These measures include a well-lit parking lot and state of the art cash registers that automatically require proper identification when alcoholic beverages are purchased. In addition, liquor would be displayed in a closed and locked cabinet at the front of the store. Managers would deliver a product at the customer’s request. The store has one security guard stationed near the front door of the store to monitor the alcohol cabinet and parking lot. The store hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., daily, so the market is not open late at night. The applicant recently completed a remodel of the shopping center, including a new façade, reconfiguration of the parking lot and the installation of improved landscaping and parking lot lighting. The applicant has been pro-active in working with staff from the Police Department and Code Enforcement Division to address on-going challenges with graffiti on the property, including planting vines on walls and improving security lighting in the rear of the center. Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to responsible business operations, and that, with recommended conditions of approval relating to security measures and the prohibition of exterior displays of alcohol, that the sale of alcoholic beverages would be compatible with the surrounding area. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 August 25, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption is a compatible use with the retail center and the surrounding area. The sale of such beverages will provide a convenience to Northgate Market patrons. Staff recommends approval of the request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Amy Vazquez Ted White Associate Planner, Lilley Planning Group Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Draft PCN Resolution 3. Request Letter 4. Police Department Memorandum The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at www.anaheim.net/planning. 5. Site and Floor Plans 6. Site Photographs C-GRETAIL RS-2SINGLE FAM ILY RE SIDE NCE IRETAIL IOFFICE U SE RS-2S.F.R . RM-4FOURPLE X RM-4DUPLE X RM-4DUPLE X RM-4FOURPLEX RS-2S.F.R . RM-4FOURPLEX RS-2S.F.R . RM-4DUPLE X IAUT O REPAIRSERVICE C-GSERVICESTATION RM-4FOURPLEX ISEL FSTORAG EFACILITY C-GOFFICE S RS-2S.F.R . RM-4DUPLE X RM-4APTS16 D U O.C.F.C .D . TRAYMON DRETARDINGBASIN RS-2S.F.R . RM-4FOURPLEX RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . C-GRETAIL RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . TRAYMON DRETARDINGBASIN RM-4APTS8 DU IRETAIL N EAST STN EAST STE R OM NE YA D R N BRI ARWOOD STE B ELMONT AVE E BA LSAM AV E E BA NYAN AV E N MERONA STE S ANDALWOO D AV E E K E N W OO D AV E E B A L S A M AV E E KE NW OO D AV E E. LA PALMA AVE E. OR ANGET HOR PE AVE N. EAST STE .L IN C O L N AVEN. ACACIA STN. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW.LA PALMA AVE E. C OM MER CIAL ST N. HARBOR BLVD11 50 No rth E ast St ree t DE V No. 2014-00066 Su bje ct Property APN : 0 73 -39 6 -22 AT TACHME NT NO. 1 0 50 10 0 Feet Ae r ia l Ph o t o :M a y 2 0 1 2 N EAST STN EAST STE ROMNEYA DR N BRI ARWOOD STE BELMONT AVE E BALSAM AVE E BANYAN AVE N MERONA STE SANDALWOOD AVE E K E NW OOD AVE E B AL SAM AVE E KENWOOD AVE E. LA PALMA AVE E. ORANG ETHOR PE AVE N. EAST STE .L IN C O L N AVEN. ACACIA STN. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW.LA PALMA AVE N. HARBOR BLVD1 1 5 0 N o r t h Ea st S t r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 6 6 Subject Property APN: 073-396-22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 TO PERMIT A TYPE 21 (OFF SALE GENERAL) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00066) (1150 NORTH EAST STREET) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00108 to permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits with a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (herein referred to as "ABC") for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing grocery store commonly known as Northgate Market (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project"), for that certain real property located at 1150 North East Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, is developed with a retail commercial center including a 14,290 square foot Northgate Market grocery store. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses. The Property is located within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (General Commercial Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00108, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and - 1 - PC2014-*** 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 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00108, does find and determine the following facts: 1. On July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). 2. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance of a license. For purposes of Section 23958, "undue concentration" means the case in which the premises are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist: (a) The premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20% greater number of "reported crimes" (as defined in Section 23958.4) than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the City of Anaheim. (b) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county. (c) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county. 3. Notwithstanding the existence of the above-referenced conditions, ABC may issue a license if the Planning Commission determines that the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance. 4. Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to "public convenience or necessity" determinations; and, when the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. - 2 - PC2014-*** 5. The Property is located within Census Tract 864.04 with a population of 6,546 that allows for three (3) off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently five (5) off-sale ABC licenses in the tract (one associated with this Property). In addition, seven on-sale licenses are allowed and one presently exists within the census tract. The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1426, which has a crime rate that is 38% above the City-wide average; however, the Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of the premises for the subject site. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this Property is 97% above the City-wide average based upon calls for service. Since there is an overconcentration in the number of off-sale ABC licenses within this census tract and the crime rate is above the City- wide average, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required to be made for this request. 6. A determination of "public convenience or necessity" can be made based on the finding that the requested license, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the sales of distilled spirits at this location will be a small percentage of overall sales for this business and an incidental commodity provided by the existing grocery store. 7. The sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits is ancillary to the grocery store and would serve as an added convenience to residents and visitors to the area who choose to shop at this establishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-premises consumption at this location and, accordingly, hereby approves Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00108, subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 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 - PC2014-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation 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 Code. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. 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, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2014-*** - 5 - PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00108 (DEV2014-00066) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 No display of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be located outside of the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to said building. Police Department 2 An on-site security guard shall monitor the grocery store and parking lot during all regular business hours. Security guards 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. Police Department 3 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood. Police Department 4 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits. Interior displays of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 5 The area of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirit displays shall not exceed 5% of the total display area in the building occupying the Property. Police Department 6 Sale of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be made to customers only when the customers are inside the building. Police Department 7 The possession of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits in open containers and the consumption of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits are prohibited on or around the Property. Police Department 8 Loitering is prohibited on or around the premises under the control of the business owner. Security guards shall routinely police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the exterior of the building located on the Property. Police Department 9 There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained at, in or upon the building located on the Property at any time, unless all required permits are first obtained from the City. Police Department - 6 - PC2014-*** 10 The parking lot of the premises 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. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. Police Department 11 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the property owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 12 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance and removal of trash or debris. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 13 All activities related to the use shall occur indoors, except as may be permitted by an authorized Special Event Permit. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division PRIOR TO THE SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 14 Store Managers and cash register employees shall obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 15 The Petitioner(s) shall post and maintain a professional quality sign facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows: NO LOITERING, NO LITTERING NO DRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST The sign shall be at least two feet square with two inch block lettering. The sign shall be in English and Spanish. Police Department GENERAL CONDITIONS 16 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 7 - PC2014-*** 17 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 18 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and reviewed by the City of Anaheim and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 8 - PC2014-*** Justification for Public Convenience or Necessity Northgate 1150 N. East St. 1. What is the primary purpose of your business? Is the sale of alcohol an essential part of the primary purpose of the business? The primary purpose of Northgate Markets is to provide convenient grocery services to the local community. The sale of alcohol is not an essential part of the primary purpose of the business, rather it is an added amenity Northgate seeks to offer customers that frequent this location. 2. Are there similar businesses or a concentration of alcohol outlets in the immediate area that already provide alcohol service? If so, how would the public convenience or necessity be served by permitting an additional license within the census tract? There are three locations within the census tract that offer Type 21 licensure. What distinguishes this application is that Northgate Markets is a community oriented and family owned grocery store that is seeking to better serve its customers. Spirits sales at other Northgate locations constitute a very small percentage of total sales, inclusion of which is offered only as an added amenity to those customers seeking to make a one-stop shop purchase of goods. Allowing customers to make such purchases at this location will be an added convenience for these individuals and will make Northgate a strong alternative to national brand chain stores that offer Type 21 sales. 3. Is there a residential neighborhood or school adjacent to the property for which you are requesting a public convenience or necessity determination? If so, please explain how permitting an additional license would not disproportionately impact an adjacent residential neighborhood or school. This location is adjacent to residential housing and a water basin. This license amendment will not disproportionally impact the adjacent residential neighborhood as Northgate is designed and planned to serve as a neighborhood grocery store. The sales associated with Type 21 licensure will constitute a very minor amount of total business and other locations have shown that such licensure does not generate a new customer base. Northgate seeks a Type 21 license to add an offered convenience for the customers that already frequent the store and are already able to purchase beer and wine options. 4. What percentage of your business do you anticipate will be alcohol sales? It is anticipated there will be a maximum of five percent (5%) of all sales attributed to alcohol and that a maximum of five percent (5%) of all shelf space will be used for display/sale of alcohol. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 5. Does your business cater to a specific need or specialty which is not currently available in the area? Northgate Markets provides exceptional customer service and products that remind many of the foods thought only to be available in Mexico, in a friendly grocery store setting. It is this approach that has distinguished Northgate Markets from the many national chain grocery stores throughout Southern California and made it the growing success it has become today. As an Anaheim-based and family-owned/operated store and grocery chain, Northgate remains dedicated to serving its customer base with everything they might desire in an easy, convenient, friendly and local setting. 6. Are you proposing any specific operational measures to eliminate or limit any potential negative consequences from the sale of alcoholic beverages? Yes. All managers and cashiers are required to attend and secure certification through an ABC Training program in order to be authorized to hold their positions within the company. 7. What type of license are you requesting from ABC? Is it an existing license? Where is the license being purchased from? Northgate is requesting a Type 21 license. The existing location currently has a Type 20 license. Northgate is requesting the issuance of a new Type 21 license to bring this grocery store into line with comparable national chain store offerings. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Northgate Market Photographs 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. ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05742 LOCATION: 1026 North Tustin Avenue (Top Class Pizza) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Ron Isaacs representing Top Class Pizza and the property owner is Wohl Anaheim, LLC. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine for on premises consumption within an existing restaurant in a commercial center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742. BACKGROUND: This 1.9-acre property is developed with a 17-unit, 146,602 square foot commercial center. The property is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 5 - Neighborhood Commercial zone (SP94-1, DA5). The General Plan designates the site for General Commercial land uses. Surrounding land uses include commercial to the north, south, and west across Tustin Avenue, and a water retention basin to the east. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to sell beer and wine in an existing 2,381 square foot pizza restaurant. No physical changes to the restaurant space are proposed. The restaurant provides a full lunch and dinner menu seven days a week, with daily hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The owner of the business would be transferring the liquor license from the restaurant’s former location at 3450 East Orangethorpe Avenue. The former location was closed because the property was acquired for a railroad grade separation project. ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to authorize the sale of beer and wine in a restaurant in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. A determination of public convenience or necessity is not required for restaurants serving beer and wine. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05742 August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 The number of alcohol licenses allowed in each of the City’s census tracts is regulated by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and is based upon population. The restaurant is located within Census Tract No. 218.13, which has a population of 25 residents. Because of this low population figure, no on-sale licenses are allowed in this tract and presently there are nine licenses within the tract. A zero license allowance is not unusual for concentrated commercial areas with a low residential population. The location is within Police Reporting District No. 1334, which has a crime rate that is below the citywide average. There have been no calls for service to this location in the last year. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this property is also below the citywide average with calls for service during the past year consisting of seven petty thefts, seven drug abuse violations and six vandalisms. Staff does not anticipate that the addition of beer and wine sales at this location would contribute to an increase in crime. This business served beer and wine at its previous location since 2006, without any alcohol related calls for police service. Staff believes the sale of beer and wine would be compatible with the surrounding area because this is a predominantly commercial and industrial area consisting of other restaurants, retail and office uses. Conditions of approval to help ensure that the business is operated in a responsible manner have been attached to the draft resolution. These conditions include a prohibition on any exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages and required ABC LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) training for employees. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement violations associated with the subject property. Staff conducted an inspection of the property and found it to be well maintained. CONCLUSION: The sale of beer and wine for on-premise consumption is consistent with the operational characteristics of the commercial center and compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial land uses. Staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Amy Vazquez Ted White Associate Planner, Lilley Planning Group Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 3. Letter of Operation 4. Police Memorandum The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at www.anaheim.net/planning. 5. Site Photographs 6. Plans SP 94-1DA5OFFICES SP 88-3DA1EXPODESIGNCENTER SP 88-3DA1PACIFICCENTER SP 88-3DA1PACIFICCENTER SP 94-1DA6O.C.F.C.D. SP 94-1DA6O.C.F.C.D. SP 94-1DA6O.C.F.C.D. SP 94-1DA5OFFICES SP 94-1DA5OFFICES SP 94-1DA5OFFICES SP 88-3DA1PACIFICCENTER 91 FREEWAY N TUSTIN AVEE LA PALMA AVE N PACI FICENTER DRN JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RDN PACIFICENTER DRE . M IR A L O M A A V E N.TU S TIN AV E E.R IV E R D A L E AV E E. LA PALMA AVEN. MI LLER STE.SA N T A ANACANYONRDN.KRAEMERB L V D E . L A P A L M A A V E 1 0 2 6 N o r t h T u st i n A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 6 3 Subject Property APN: 346-132-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 91 FREEWAY N TUSTIN AVEE LA PALMA AVE N PACI FICENTER DRN JEFFERSON FRONTAGE RDN PACIFICENTER DRE . M IR A L O M A A V E N.TU S TIN AV E E.R IV E R D A L E AV E E. LA PALMA AVEN. MI LLER STE.SA N T A ANACANYONRDN.KRAEMERB L V D E . L A P A L M A A V E 1 0 2 6 N o r t h T u st i n A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 6 3 Subject Property APN: 346-132-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05742 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00063) (1026 North Tustin Avenue) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742 to allow the on-site consumption of beer and wine in an existing restaurant (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") on that certain real property located at 1026 North Tustin Avenue in the City of Anaheim, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), pursuant to Section 18.60.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (“Code”); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is developed with a 17- unit, 146,602 square foot commercial center. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercial land uses. The Property is located in the Commercial Area (Development Area 5) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area. The underlying base zone for the Property is the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone. Unless otherwise indicated in Section 18.120.100 [Land Use and Development Standards – Commercial Area (Development Area 5)] of Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), the zoning and development standards of the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone shall apply; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and -1- 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 pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit beer and wine service for on-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant within an existing commercial retail center in the Commercial Area (Development Area 5) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by paragraph .0522 of subsection .050 of Section 18.120.100 [Land Use and Development Standards – Commercial Area (Development Area 5)] of the Code. 2. The Proposed Project is in compliance with the zoning and development standards of the "C-NC" Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone and the regulations contained in Section 18.18.080 (Commercial Zones – Uses). 3. The request to permit beer and wine service for on-premises consumption in conjunction with 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 retail center and the existing use is compatible with the surrounding area; and 4. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the existing use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because the Property is currently improved with a commercial retail center and there is no proposed expansion; and 5. The traffic generated by permitting beer and wine service for on-premises consumption in conjunction with 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 Property are consistent with the existing commercial use of the Property and the permitted businesses within the commercial center; and 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 because the Property is a commercial center which allows restaurant businesses and the existing restaurant is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 2 - PC2014-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742 at the Property, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742 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 of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05742 constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Zoning Code of the City of Anaheim 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 Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a resolution of the City Council in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 3 - PC2014-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2014-*** - 5 - PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05742 (DEV2014-00063) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 The managers and/or owners shall call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training for themselves and service employees. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 2 The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbances to surrounding properties. Police Department 3 All activities related to the use shall occur indoors, except as may be permitted by an authorized Special Event Permit. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 4 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, or minimum purchase required. Police Department 5 At all times when the premises is open for business, the premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police Department 6 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. 7 The existing restaurant shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Operation submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in the Letter of Operation shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Operation and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 8 Security measures 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. Any 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. Police Department 9 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department - 6 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 10 The occupancy shall not exceed the lesser of (i) the occupancy limit for the premises established by the Anaheim Fire Department or (ii) an occupancy limit established as a condition of the permit approved pursuant to this chapter, or any zone variance issued pursuant to Title 18 of this Code. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit(s) from the room(s). Police Department, Fire Department 11 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. Police Department 12 The managers and/or owners shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police Department 13 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 Department 14 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Police Department 15 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music, loitering, or dancing permitted outside of the building. No entertainment shall be allowed on the premises unless the business owner first obtains an Entertainment Permit. Police Department 16 Windows of restaurant shall not be covered by advertising to the extent that the interior is not clearly visible from the outside to enable officers responding to potential emergency situations to observe any activity which may be occurring inside. At no time shall window signs exceed 10% of the window area, in compliance with the Zoning Code. Police Department 17 No required parking area shall be fenced-off or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division - 7 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 18 The managers and/or owners shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and removal of trash or debris. 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. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 19 The Applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 20 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 21 The 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 and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 8 - PC2014-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Photographs 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. ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00270 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-120 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05704 LOCATION: 320 North Anaheim Boulevard, 408 – 424 North Anaheim Boulevard, 321 North Claudina Street, and 401 – 417 North Claudina Street APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The agent is Greg McCafferty, representing the applicant and property owner, William Taormina. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications: 1) A Zoning Reclassification of the properties from the Single Family Residential (RS-3) and General Commercial (C-G) zones to the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay zone; 2) A Tentative Parcel Map to merge seven parcels into one parcel; and 3) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit the conversion of an existing auto body facility to a neighborhood marketplace to include indoor and outdoor retail stores, restaurants, outdoor dining, on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, and outdoor entertainment and special events; the conversion of two single family homes to offices; the conversion of an existing public street (Adele Street) to a community plaza; and to permit on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at an existing legally nonconforming banquet hall (Landmark). DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request to continue this hearing to the September 8, 2014, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to address comments received at a community meeting that was held on August 13, 2014. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this hearing be continued to the September 8, 2014, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. Prepared by, Submitted by, David See Ted White Senior Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Applicant’s Request for Continuance 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net C -G P A R K IN G L O T RS-3DUPLEX R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -3 T R IP L E X RS-3APTS6 DU C -G A U T O R E P A IR /S E R V IC E RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RE SID EN CE RS-3FOURPLE X R S -3S.F .R .R S -3 T R IP L E X R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .R S -2 T R IP L E X R S -2S.F .R .C -G O F F IC E S RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RE SID EN CE R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3 D U P L E X R M -4PAR K P R O M E N A D E A P T S 2 4 D U R S -2S.F .R .R M -4 A P T S 1 2 D U R S -2S.F .R .T R E L IG IO U S U S E C -GRETA IL C -GNIGH TCLUB R S -3 F O U R P L E X C -G O F F IC E S R S -3 R E L IG IO U S U S E R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3S.F .R .RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RE SID EN CE R S -3S.F .R .TVAC A N T R S -2S.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .R S -3 R E L IG IO U S U S E R S -3 V A C A N T R S -3S.F .R .RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RE SID EN CE RS-3FOURPLE X R S -2S.F .R .T A P T S 2 0 D U TPARK IN G L O T C -G O F F IC E S C -G R E S T A U R A N T R S -3 T R IP L E X R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -3 D U P L E X R M -4APT S8 D U R M -4 A P T S 1 0 D U C -GAPT S5 D U R S -3S.F .R .R M -3 R E T A IL R S -3 D U P L E X C -GS.F .R .R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3 D U P L E X C-GCOLON YPARK R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .C -G R E L IG IO U S U S E C -GRETA IL C -GRETA IL C -GRETA IL R S -36 D U R S -3 T R IP L E X R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .C -G V A C A N T R S -3S.F .R .R S -3S.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .C -GAUT OSALE S R S -3S.F .R .C -GS.F .R .R S -2S.F .R .C -GAUT O B O D Y S H O P R M -4 P A R K IN G L O T R M -4SFR N ANAHEI M BL VDS ANAHEI M BL VDN EMI LY STE A D E L E S TN CLAUDI NA STE S Y C A M O R E S T E C Y P R E S S S T N LEMON STN ZEYN STW C Y P R E S S S T W A D E L E S T E A L B E R T A S T W S Y C A M O R E S T W A L B E R T A S T N PHI LADELPHI A STN CL AUDI NA STE. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E W .LIN C O L N A V E N. EAST STS. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDW. LA PALMA AV E W . B R O A D W A Y E . B R O A D W A Y S. ANAHEI M BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y E . B R O A D W A Y320 N orth Ana he im Bou lev ard408-42 4 N ort h An ah eim Bo ule va r d321 N orth C la udi na Stree t,401 -41 7 N ort h C la ud ina Stre et D E V 20 13 -0 01 0 6 Su bje ct Property APN: 035-111-01035-111-02035-111-03035-111-04035-111-05035-111-06035-115-01 ATTACHM ENT NO. 1 0 50 10 0 Feet Ae ria l Pho to :Ma y 20 12 N ANAHEI M BLVDS ANAHEI M BL VDN EMI LY STE A D E L E S TN CLAUDI NA STE S Y C A M O R E S T E C Y P R E S S S T N LEMON STN ZEYN STW C Y P R E S S S T W A D E L E S T E A L B E R T A S T W S Y C A M O R E S T W A L B E R T A S T N PHI LADELPHI A STN CLAUDI NA STN PHI LADELPHI A STE. LA PALMA AVE E . L I N C O L N A V E W .LIN C O L N A V E N. EAST STS. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDW. LA PALMA AVE W . B R O A D W A Y E . B R O A D W A Y S. ANAHEI M BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y E . B R O A D W A Y320 North Anaheim Boulev ard408-424 North Anah eim Boulevard321 North Claudina Street ,4 0 1-417 North Clau dina St re et D E V2013-00106 Subject Property APN: 035-111-01035-111-02035-111-03035-111-04035-111-05035-111-06035-115-01 ATTACHMEN T NO. 1 0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 From:Greg McCafferty To:Ted White Cc:David See ; Josh Haskins Subject:Mercado la Misión Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 12:12:36 PM Attachments:ED4F3D3D-393F-413B-B97A-7CABD7C4711C.png Ted, Based on the input we received at the community meeting held on August 13, we are requesting a two-week continuance to the September 8 Planning Commission meeting. We are working to address all of the issues raised at the meeting and plan on meeting with those neighbors who expressed issues prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Thanks Greg McCafferty, Principal 2400 E. Katella Ave., Suite 800 Anaheim, CA 92806 Phone: (714) 606-7208 Email: greg@development -advisors.com 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. 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. ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00263 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 LOCATION: 2651 West Lincoln Avenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Efrem Joelson representing Watt Communities, LLC and the property owner is Roy W. Mabee. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications: 1) A Zoning Reclassification of the property from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-3) zone; 2) A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project with modifications to the development standards; and 3) A Tentative Tract Map to establish a 41-unit residential subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 32- In - Fill Development Projects) and Section 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects) and approving Reclassification No. 2014-000263, Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17720. BACKGROUND: The 2.34-acre project site is located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone and is designated for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. The site is developed with a recreational vehicle park. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, a shopping center and apartments to the west, a flood control channel and condominiums to the east, and a motel to the south across Lincoln Avenue. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 41-unit attached condominium project. The units would be three stories and would range from 1,511 to 1,559 square feet in size. Each unit would have three bedrooms and two and one-half bathrooms. The project includes eight separate buildings which share two architectural styles. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-000263, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 4 A Spanish Revival style is proposed for the building fronting Lincoln Avenue and two of the interior buildings. An Early California style is proposed for the remaining 5 buildings which are all interior to the property. A 55-foot wide common recreation area is provided at the rear of the property, including a turf play area, tot lot, and dining terrace. The property would be enclosed by an existing six foot high perimeter wall. A detailed development summary is included as Attachment 6 to this report. Access to the homes would be provided by a new driveway from Lincoln Avenue. Sidewalks and paseos would provide pedestrian access to all units. No gates are proposed as part of this proposal. ANALYSIS: Following is staff's analysis and recommendation for each requested action: Reclassification: This request would rezone the property from the C-G zone to the RM-3 zone. The General Plan designation for this property is Low-Medium Density Residential, which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The RM-3 zone is a typical implementation zone for the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. The proposed project has a density of 17.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning designation would be compatible with the diverse residential and commercial land uses surrounding the property. The change in zone is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which includes the following goals: • Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. • Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development. Conditional Use Permit: The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to allow a residential planned unit development for single-family attached dwellings in the RM-3 zone. In this zone, development standards, including setback and distance separation requirements, may be modified as part of a conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications serve to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. This project includes proposed modifications to the following development standards: Building Setback to Interior Property Line: The applicant is requesting a 10-foot wide building setback where a 20-foot wide setback would typically be required adjacent to the eastern property line. Five of the eight buildings are proposed to be 10 feet from the eastern property line. The intent of the 20-foot setback along the interior property lines is to ensure that adequate separation and landscaping is provided between adjacent uses. A flood control channel borders the property on the east side for more than half of the length of the property. The remainder of the property is adjacent to an existing two-story condominium development. The proposed condominiums adjacent to the eastern property line will be three stories and 32 feet in height. These proposed units would be located between 30 and 37 feet from the adjacent condominiums. In order to minimize visual impacts of this project upon the adjacent residential property, the applicant is proposing enhanced landscaping along the RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-000263, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 August 25, 2014 Page 3 of 4 property line consisting of densely planted trees. Staff believes that the proposed 10-foot setback is appropriate and compatible with the adjacent land uses. Separation between Buildings: The Zoning Code requires a 40-foot separation between three-story buildings with parallel walls that are designated as “primary” walls. Primary walls are building walls that contain an entrance and/or windows opening into living areas. The project would have 20 foot wide paseos between two buildings and 28 to 34 foot wide driveways between the other buildings. A 10 foot wide walkway would be located between two of the buildings to reduce the massing of the buildings and provide pedestrian circulation within the project. The project would include 26,271 square feet of common recreation space where 14,350 square feet is required. The proposed recreation spaces include a turf lawn, tot lot, dining terrace, and two garden areas. Staff believes that the modified separations between buildings are justified because the modifications would allow for the efficient layout of buildings on the property and provide greater usable common recreation-leisure areas in the project than could be provided if the separations between buildings were required. Parking: The proposed project requires a total of 123 parking spaces for the 41 residences and 123 parking spaces are proposed. As previously indicated, 18 of the units would have two-car garages and 23 units would have three-car garages. The three-car garages would have two side by side spaces and one tandem space. A total of 18 unenclosed parking spaces are proposed. Eleven of these spaces would be assigned to guests with the remaining seven spaces assigned to residents. The project would provide the Code required number of parking spaces. The Zoning Code does not currently permit tandem parking spaces in multiple-family residential developments. However, a separate City-initiated request to amend the Zoning Code to permit tandem parking spaces is included as Item No. 6 on this agenda. Tandem parking is currently permitted in other locations in the City, including the Platinum Triangle, the South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay zone, and citywide as part of affordable housing projects. Staff has evaluated the operation of other projects with tandem parking and determined them to be successfully operated when the tandem spaces are assigned to the same dwelling unit. Potential conflict between residents over tandem spaces is eliminated when the tandem spaces are controlled by the same household. The tandem spaces for this project would all be located in enclosed garages controlled by a single household. Staff believes that the design would function similar to single- family residences where tandem spaces are provided in front of garages. For these reasons staff supports the request for tandem parking, subject to approval of the City initiated Zoning Code Amendment. Tentative Tract Map: A tentative tract map is required to create a one-lot, airspace subdivision for individual ownership of the units. All common areas, including driveways, recreational areas, paseos and sidewalks would be maintained by the homeowner’s association. Staff is supportive of the proposed map. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-000263, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 August 25, 2014 Page 4 of 4 CONCLUSION: Staff believes the proposed project is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for its future residents and is compatible with surrounding residential and commercial land uses. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, including the goals of the Land Use Element. Staff recommends approval of the proposed request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Scott Koehm Ted White Associate Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Project Summary 3. Draft Reclassification Resolution 4. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 5. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution 6. Applicant’s Project Description The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Services Division at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at www.anaheim.net/planning. 7. Initial Study 8. Site Photographs 9. Plans C-GLINCOLNRV PARK TCRESTMOTEL TS.F.R. RM-4DUPLEX RM-4SAN MARCUS56 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4VACANT RM-4BEACHSIDEAPARTMENTS42 DU C-GAUTO REPAIRSERVICE C-GRETAIL O.C.F.C.D. RM-4WINDSONGAPARTMENTS24 DU RM-4MAGNOLIAAPARTMENTS26 DU TPRIVATE SCHOOL RM-4COURTYARDAPARTMENTS48 DU TSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.EASEMENT RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4PALM WESTAPARTMENTS18 DU RM-4LINCOLN PARKAPARTMENTS63 DU C-GRETAIL RM-4S.F.R. C-GRETAIL TS.F.R. RM-4SAN CARLOSAPARTMENTS56 DU C-GVALENCIA INN RM-4AGATE MANORAPARTMENTS18 DU RM-4CANTAMARAPARTMENTS24 DU TNURSERY C-GRETAIL C-GRETAIL RM-2CONDOS12 DU RM-2CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE95 DU TSOUTHERNCALIFORNIAEDISONEASEMENT W LINCOLN AVE W LI NC OLN AV EW LI NC OLN AVE W YA LE AVE S STINSON STN LA REINA STN LA REINA CIRN NEW LIFE WAYW. LINCOLN AVE W. BROADWAY W. ORANGE AVE W. CRESCENT AVE N. DALE AVEN. MAGNOLIA AVE. CRESCENT AVE N. BROOKHURST STS. BROOKHURST STS. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 2 6 5 1 W e s t L i n co l n A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 0 9 Subject Property APN: 070-534-15 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 W LINCOLN AVE W LI NC OLN AV EW LI NC OLN AVE W YA LE AVE S STINSON STN LA REINA STN LA REINA CIRN NEW LIFE WAYN NEW LIFE WAY W. LINCOLN AVE W. BROADWAY W. ORANGE AVE W. CRESCENT AVE N. DALE AVEN. MAGNOLIA AVE. CRESCENT AVE N. BROOKHURST STS. BROOKHURST STS. BEACH BLVDW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 2 6 5 1 W e s t L i n co l n A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 4 -0 0 0 0 9 Subject Property APN: 070-534-15 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 2 PROJECT SUMMARY RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00263, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 Development Standard Proposed Project RM-3 Standards Site Area 2.34 acres N/A Density 17.5 du/ac 18 du/ac max. Recreational Leisure Area 26,271 s.f. 14,350 s.f. min. required Parking 123 spaces 123 required Landscaping and Building Setbacks Lincoln Avenue 20 feet North, adjacent to single-family residences 55 feet (10 feet landscaped) East, adjacent to multiple-family residences 10 feet West, adjacent to multiple-family residences 32 – 67 feet Lincoln Avenue 20 feet North, adjacent to single-family residences 55 feet (10 feet landscaped) East, adjacent to multiple- family residences 15-20 feet West, adjacent to multiple- family residences 20 feet Building Height 35 feet, 7 inches 40 feet Unit Mix Tuck-Under Townhomes - 13 units Plan 1: 1,511 s.f. (3 bd/2.5 ba) 7 Plan 2: 1,541 s.f. (3 bd/2.5 ba) 6 3-Story Townhomes - 28 units Plan 1: 1,535 s.f. (3 bd/2.5 ba) 18 Plan 2: 1,559 s.f. (3 bd/2.5 ba) 10 N/A ATTACHMENT NO. 2 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00263 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT SAID RECLASSIFICATION, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (DEV2014-00009) (2651 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for reclassification, designated as Reclassification No. 2014-00263, for that certain real property located at 2651 West Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). Reclassification No. 2014-00263 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17720 to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project (herein referred to collectively as the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with a recreational vehicle park. The Property is located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests to rezone the Property to the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project, including Reclassification No. 2014-00263; and WHEREAS, by the adoption of a separate resolution concurrently with but prior in time to this Resolution, this Planning Commission has heretofore found and determined, as the lead agency under CEQA, that, on the basis of a thorough review of the Proposed Project and an Environmental Checklist prepared therefor in accordance with Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, that (1) no additional environmental review is required under CEQA, and (2) the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 – In -Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines; and - 1 - PC2014-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. Reclassification of the Property from the "C-G" General Commercial Zone to the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s existing Low- Medium Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. 2. The proposed reclassification of the Property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone and its permitted uses locally established within and in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2014-00263 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Property into the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the Property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. - 2 - PC2014-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 3 - PC2014-*** - 4 - PC2014-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00009) (2651 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745 to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project, for that certain real property located at 2651 West Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745 is proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 2014-00263 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17720 to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project (herein referred to collectively as the “Proposed Project”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with a recreational vehicle park. The Property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Low Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project, including Conditional Use Permit No. 2014- 05745; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Checklist has been prepared for the Proposed Project. The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Checklist prior to acting upon the Proposed Project. Based upon the information contained in the Environmental Checklist, the Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: (1) The Environmental Checklist has been completed in compliance with the requirements of Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines and provides an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, (2) The Proposed Project is located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed and adjoins existing urban uses on at least 75% of the perimeter of the Property, (3) "Uniformly applicable development policies or standards", as defined in paragraph (f) of Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, which have been adopted by the City, apply to the Proposed Project, - 1 - PC2014-*** (4) The Proposed Project will not have any significant effects on the environment, and (5) The Environmental Checklist documents that the Proposed Project satisfies the applicable performance standards for infill projects set forth in Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, eligible for streamlining the environmental review process prescribed in Section 15183.3; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under CEQA, the Planning Commission finds and determines that no additional environmental review is required under CEQA and, therefore, authorizes and directs that staff prepare and file a Notice of Determination as provided in Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Environmental Checklist, the Planning Commission further finds and determines that the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of any additional environmental documents under CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 – In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit the Proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under paragraph .0402 of Subsection .040 of Section 18.06.030 of the Code; and 2. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. The Project complies with and implements the City’s General Plan and, along with the Proposed Project’s design, recommended conditions of approval have been included to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts; and 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety because the site can accommodate the parking, traffic, and circulation without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties; and 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the Proposed Project has been designed to accommodate the required parking, vehicular circulation, and trash collection; and - 2 - PC2014-*** 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, subject to compliance with the conditions contained herein. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745, contingent upon and subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance reclassifying the Property to the "RM-3" Residential Multiple Family Zone in accordance with Reclassification No. 2014-00263, (2) approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17720, both of which entitlements are now pending, (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and (4) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00119 amending the Zoning Code to permit tandem parking spaces in the “RM-3” Multiple Family Residential Zone. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation 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 Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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. - 3 - PC2014-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. 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, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2014-*** - 5 - PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05745 (DEV2014-00009) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 The water quality management plan shall address the following items: • The WQMP shall include additional information such as soils analysis, prior contamination, depth to groundwater, etc. to determine the acceptability and capability of this site to use infiltration. • The criteria identified in the DAMP in order to allow infiltration to occur on a site must be evaluated and deemed adequate for the determination to be made to infiltrate onsite. • The applicant shall obtain approval for infiltration from the City and from the Orange County Water District. The City will coordinate the review of this proposed infiltration system to obtain comments. • The WQMP and grading plans shall show that flows are conveyed to the infiltration areas. • The WQMP shall show the required pretreatment for any focused infiltration. The pretreatment system may be landscape swales, filter strips or bio-retention areas (rain gardens), prior to reaching the infiltration system. Public Works, Development Services 2 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right-of-way construction permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever occurs first, a Save Harmless agreement in-lieu of an Encroachment Agreement is required to be executed, approved by the City and recorded by the applicant on the property for any storm drains connecting to a City storm drain. Public Works, Development Services 3 The property owner shall submit project improvement plans that incorporate the required drainage improvements and the mechanisms proposed in the approved Drainage Report. No offsite run-off shall be blocked during and after grading operations or perimeter wall construction. Public Works, Development Services PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO WATER ENGINEERING 4 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department's standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 6 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. 5 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 6 The existing 4-inch FM water meter serving the property is substandard and must be abandoned, cut and capped at the main per City standards prior to the issuance of any building permits. Public Utilities, Water Engineering PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 7 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 8 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 9 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 10 This is a project with a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a Landscape Documentation Package and a Certification of Completion are required and a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter I 0.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 6160 relating to landscape water efficiency. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 11 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 7 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT abandon any water service or fire line. 12 All public improvement plans and approved design shall be submitted. The legal property owner shall post a security to complete the required public improvements. The improvements shall be completed prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections. Public Works, Development Services 13 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, excluding model homes, the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and the Orange County Surveyor for technical review and that all applicable conditions of approval have been complied with and then shall be filed in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Public Works, Development Services 14 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for the proposed private drive. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be painted on private drive in the southbound direction at Lincoln Avenue prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works, Development Services 15 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works, Development Services PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 16 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 17 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 18 The required public improvements shall be installed prior to final zoning and building inspection. Public Works, Development Services 19 The developer shall improve Lincoln Avenue per the West Lincoln Avenue Corridor Master Plan or as approved by the City Engineer (public) including: widen the north side of Lincoln Avenue 3 foot; install curb, gutter, pavement, and accessible ramps; relocate utilities as required; install a 9 foot parkway (full sidewalk) with trees in an alternating planting of Washingtonia palms and Tipuana Tipu trees 30 feet on center. The palms will be placed in 4’X 8’ planters at the back of curb face. The Tipuana trees will be placed along the right of way line, at the back of the sidewalk, in 4’X 8’ planters. Public Works, Development Services 20 ADA compliant curb access ramps with truncated domes shall be constructed at the intersections of Lincoln Avenue on both sides of the private drive in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail 111-3. Public Works, Development Services - 8 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 21 All required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works, Development Services 22 All required public street, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and drainage improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services inspector. Public Works, Construction Services ON-GOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS 23 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. Police Department 24 Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division 25 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveway or access roads without providing a vehicle turnaround area. Public Works, Traffic Engineering GENERAL 26 The 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, and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 27 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 28 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 29 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 10 - PC2014-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00009) (2651 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17720 to establish a 1-lot, 41-unit residential subdivision for a proposed single-family attached residential project (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") on that certain real property located at 2651 West Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). Tentative Tract Map No. 17720 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745 and Reclassification No. 2014-00263 to construct a 41-unit single family attached residential project (herein referred to collectively as the “Proposed Project”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with a recreational vehicle park. The Property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project, including Conditional Use Permit No. 2014- 05745; and WHEREAS, by the adoption of a separate resolution concurrently with but prior in time to this Resolution, this Planning Commission has heretofore found and determined, as the lead agency under CEQA, that, on the basis of a thorough review of the Proposed Project and an Environmental Checklist prepared therefor in accordance with Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, that (1) no additional environmental review is required under CEQA, and (2) the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 – In -Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - 1 - PC2014-*** 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 pertaining to the request to permit a 1-lot, 41-unit residential subdivision, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17720, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Low Medium Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and, more specifically, the "RM-3" Multiple Family Residential Zone and the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.06 of the Code pertaining to single-family attached projects within the "RM-3" Multiple Family Residential Zone. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Proposed Project. 3. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposedTentative Tract Map No. 17720, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17720, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17720, or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public, at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 2 - PC2014-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17720, subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance reclassifying the Property to the "RM-3" Residential Multiple Family Zone in accordance with Reclassification No. 2014-00263, (2) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05745, both of which entitlements are now pending, (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and (4) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00119 amending the Zoning Code to permit tandem parking spaces in the “RM-3” Multiple Family Residential Zone. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Section 17.08.104 of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 3 - PC2014-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, 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 August 25, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of August, 2014. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2014-*** - 5 - PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17720 (DEV2014-00009) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 1 The final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and the Orange County Surveyor for technical review and that all applicable conditions of approval have been complied with and then shall be filed in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Public Works, Development Services 2 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division. Public Works, Development Services 3 The vehicular access rights to Lincoln Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim, except at approved private driveway openings. Public Works, Development Services 4 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities such as private sewer, private driveway, and private storm drain improvements; compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan; and a maintenance exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include all drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation on Lincoln Avenue, the private driveway name signs and the private drive. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. Public Works, Development Services 5 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for improvements along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue and the private drive. Improvements shall conform to the City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer. Parkway landscaping and irrigation shall be installed on the public and the private drive. Public Works, Development Services 6 The legal property owner shall post a security and execute a Subdivision Agreement to complete the required public improvements at the legal owner’s expense in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section for approval by the City Council. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. Public Works, Development Services - 6 - PC2014-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 7 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 8 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 9 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 10 The 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, and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 7 - PC2014-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR INFILL PROJECTS CASE NOS.: DEV2014-00009, RCL2014-00263, SUBTM17720 SITE ADDRESS: 2651 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim APNs: 070-53-415 LOCATION: The north side of W. Lincoln Avenue between Dale Ave. and Magnolia Ave. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this infill Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetic / Visual  Agricultural & Forestry  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology / Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology / Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation / Traffic  Utilities / Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance SATISFACTION OF APPENDIX M PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: 1. Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain why it is not feasible to do so. Yes. The proposed Project includes the installation of Sun Power solar panels. The panels are 61” X 31” in size and generate 230 watts of electricity. 2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project. The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code. 3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local General Plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection f public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. The proposed project is not located within 500 feet of a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution. - 1- ATTACHMENT NO. 7 4. For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following?  Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M (Attach VMT map)  Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.)  Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. (Attach evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.) 5. For commercial projects with a single building floor-plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following?  Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M (Attach VMT map)  The project is within one-half mile of 1,800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.) 6. For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following?  Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.)  Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or within ¼ mile of a stop along a high quality transit corridor (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) 7. For educational projects, the project satisfies which of the following?  The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the Education Code.  The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.)  The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters 8. For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both. The proposed project is not a small walkable community. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) On the basis of this initial evaluation:  I find that the proposed infill Project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed.  I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if - 2- the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.  I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.  I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects would be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those impacts that are subject to CEQA. Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Laurie Litwin, Associate Planner (714) 765-5238 Printed Name, Title Phone Number - 3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) For the purposes of this checklist, “prior EIR” means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. “Planning level decision” means the enactment or amendment of a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (Section 15183.3)(e)). 3) Once the lead agency had determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of an infill project, the checklist answers must indicated whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portion of the EIR containing the analysis of that impact. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project. 4) If the infill project would cause a significant adverse effect that either is specific to the project or project site and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant that what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project’s implementation of the uniformly applicable development policies will substantially mitigate the effect. That effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect. 5) If all effects of an infill project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards, CEQA does not apply to the project, and the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination. 6) Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. If there are one or more “Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis of those effects determined to be significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d)). 7) “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from “Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that area subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and - 4- b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. - 5- General Plan Designation Low-Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation General Commercial (C-G) – Would be rezoned to Multi Family Residential (RM-3) upon approval. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (include State Clearinghouse Number) None. Location of Prior Environmental Documents(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project Not applicable. Project Setting The proposed Project site is located at 2651 W. Lincoln Avenue. The 2.42-acre project site is located on the north side of Lincoln west of Magnolia Avenue and east of Dale Avenue. The site is in its existing condition is shown in Figure 1, Aerial Photo. The project Site is currently developed with an RV Park containing 69 camping spaces. The project area is predominantly commercial, although multi-family apartments are located across Lincoln Avenue from the project site. Figure 1. Aerial Photo - 6- Project Description The proposed Project includes a reclassification of the Project site from General Commercial (CG) to Multi- Family Residential (RM-3) to allow the construction of development of 41 attached townhomes on a 2.42- acre parcel located at 2651 W. Lincoln Avenue. The Site Plan for the proposed Project is shown in Figure 2, Site Plan. In order to process the residential subdivision as proposed, the Project applicant is requesting the following zoning entitlements: 1. Zoning Reclassification from the General Commercial (CG) zone to the Multi-Family Residential (RM-3) Zone. 2. A Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of attached single family townhomes in the RM- 3 zone. 3. A Subdivision map to develop 41 attached townhomes on a single-lot subdivision. The type of townhome units being proposed is an attached, alley-loaded townhome. The front entry and garage are located on opposite sides of the house. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways would connect the site to providing walkability from the drives through green open space to each unit. The size of the residences would vary from 1,984 square feet to 2,104 square feet and would contain three bedrooms. Each unit would contain a ground-floor garage. The garage would contain tandem-style parking to fit three cars. Total square footage of construction on the site would be approximately 84,000 square feet. The maximum height of the homes would be just over 35.5 feet. The total density of the project would be 16.9 dwelling units per acre. The total amount of impervious surfaces proposed for the site is 1.83 acres, or 79,715 square feet. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities department would provide both water and sewer service to the proposed Project. Dry utilities would be provided by the appropriate power, gas and communication company. Circulation would be provided by a series of private streets/driveways. The main entrance to the community would be located off of West Lincoln Avenue. That driveway would provide access to the units and the site parking by way of six private drives. Construction is proposed to start in January of 2015 and last for 18 months, commencing in June 2016. Construction would occur in three general phases: demolition, grading, and building. The proposed Project would construct sewer, storm drains, water infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, and streets within the development. Figure 2. Site Plan - 7- - 8- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?      No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area developed with mostly commercial uses. The area is built out and no scenic vistas are located within the immediate project area. No impacts would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?      No Impact. The site is not located near a designated or eligible California scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2013) and there are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings onsite. The closest scenic highway to the Project site is SR-91, located over eight miles east of the Project site. The Project would not impact any scenic resources. No impacts would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?      Less Than Significant Impact. The existing Project site is currently developed with an RV park. The Project consists of reclassification to allow a 41-unit multi-family tract and the construction of 41 townhomes. The Project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because the Project is proposed within the existing urbanized environment. Multi-family apartment uses are located on the opposite site of Lincoln Avenue. Further, the siting of the proposed residential units, undergrounding of utility lines, and implementation of landscaping plans will ensure an aesthetically pleasing subdivision development. Aesthetic impacts to the site and surrounding areas would be less than significant. 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. The Project consists of reclassification to allow a 41-unit townhome tract and the construction of 41 townhomes. The Project site is currently developed and utilizes nighttime security lighting. Construction of the new homes would produce nighttime lighting that is more than what is currently produced on the site. However, the amount of lighting would be minimal and consist mostly of outdoor lighting on each home and additional street lights, similar to what already exists in the area. The amount of lighting would not be substantial or adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No impacts would occur. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: - 9- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies 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 Project site is identified as “urban and built-up land 1” on the 2010 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County (DOC 2010). The Project site and surrounding area do not contain agricultural uses or related operations. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?      No Impact. The Project site is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) (DOC 2004). No agricultural zoning is present in the surrounding area and no nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?      d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?      e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?      No Impact (c, d & e). No impacts to timberland, forest land or agricultural resources would result from the proposed Project because the Project site is not located in a forested or agricultural area. No impacts would occur. 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?      1 Urban and built-up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment and water control structures. - 10- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. There are two key indicators of consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): 1. Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. A project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in the 2012 AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. According to the SCAQMD, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP if the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. If the Project emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PM 10 or PM 2.5 , it allows that the emissions could contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant would not be consistent with the goals of the AQMP. As shown in Table 1, below, the proposed Project would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable regional air quality violation impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the CAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. The Project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD. The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange County and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. The RTP is utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and air quality consistency analysis included in the AQMP. A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2012 AQMP incorporates the RTP’s socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The Project would not result in an increase in jobs, and therefore is not expected to exceed AQMP projections. The increase in population due to development of the Project (five new dwelling units) would not affect AQMP projections in population growth as the Project is consistent with the growth anticipated under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan. Because the Project would not conflict with existing population or employment projections, the Project is consistent with the population forecasts for the sub-region as adopted by SCAG. Because the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD’s projections incorporated into the AQMP, it can be concluded that the Project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. Based on the above discussion, implementation of the Project would result in no impact related to implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impacts would occur. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?      - 11- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within SoCAB which is characterized by relatively poor air quality and is a Federal- and State-designated nonattainment area for O 3 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 (US EPA 2012). SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities relative to these criteria pollutants. Based on the following analysis, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant construction emissions established by the SCAQMD. Construction Impacts - The proposal consists of the construction of 41 single-family residences on a 2.42-acre parcel. General construction activities, such as site preparation, including demolition of the few existing accessory structures onsite, grading, and travel by construction workers can contribute to air pollutants. All construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005) regarding the control of fugitive dust emissions, and existing City dust suppression practices that minimize dust and other emissions. Such controls include frequent watering of the site, the covering and/or wetting of trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials off-site, street sweeping, as needed, to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud that would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing the site, suspending grading and excavation activities in high winds (25 miles per hour [mph] or more) as well as implementation of a traffic control plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities, etc., that would be incorporated into the construction plans. Construction of the Project is conservatively anticipated to last 18 months and construction would be broken into three phases: demolition, grading, and building construction (which consists of building construction, paving, and architectural coating). Pollutant emissions resulting from Project construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod model (Appendix A). Construction emissions are based on conservative assumptions, which imply a default equipment mix and a worst-case construction schedule. As shown in Table 1, entitled “Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions,” the incremental increase in emissions from Project construction activities fall well below SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions. Regional emissions refer to the ambient conditions surrounding the site. Details of this analysis are available in Appendix A. Operational Impacts - The Project’s incremental increase in regional emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Mobile source emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by CalEEMod, based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily VMT rate is based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from CalEEMod. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated with commuting to and from the Project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year are projected based on SoCAB- specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on land use specific energy consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State-wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, and do not take into account any unique emissions profile. At this time, these emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by CalEEMod and include emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 1, the operational emissions pollutant concentrations resulting from Project operation would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts would be less than significant. - 12- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Table 1 Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions Mass Daily Thresholds (pounds per day) VOC NO x CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Construction Emissions SCQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 2014 Project Emissions 65 60 43 .05 10 7 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Project Emissions 3 4 29 .06 4 2 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Source of emissions: CalEEMod 2013.2.2 Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Regional emissions refer to the ambient conditions surrounding the site. Therefore, pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be less than significant. Operational related impacts are typically associated with emissions produced from Project-generated vehicle trips. The Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units and, once completed, the Project is forecast to generate 270 daily trips (63 net new daily vehicle trips). Based on the Project’s anticipated compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the scale of development, it is anticipated that impacts to existing air quality standards would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. 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)?      Less than Significant Impact. Any project which contributes a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The regional emissions calculated for the Project are less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, which are designed to assist the SoCAB in attaining the applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary pollutants (O 3 ). Although the Project site is located in a region that is in non-attainment for O 3 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 , the emissions associated with the Project would not be cumulatively considerable as the emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?      Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors located near the Project site include residential uses located less than 100 feet from the Project site. SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable Federal and State standards. The incremental increase in emissions from construction activities associated with the Project would be below SCAQMD LSTs. In addition, construction of the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for dust suppression, which would limit emissions of particulate matter. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a significant increase in the concentration of criteria pollutants. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. - 13- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?      Less Than Significant Impact. Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial and some commercial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum product, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. Because the Project does not involve odor-producing land uses, no impacts would occur. Although construction equipment and vehicles associated with the development of the site may produce exhaust emissions, any potential resulting odor would be intermittent, temporary and less than significant in nature. No significant impacts would occur. 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 Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?      No Impact. The proposed Project site is highly disturbed. The only vegetation onsite is ornamental. The highly disturbed nature of the Project site and surrounding urbanized area creates an unsuitable environment for any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No impacts would occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?      No Impact. The proposed Project site is highly disturbed and located within a developed area of the City. The only vegetation on site is ornamental, in nature. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive community on or adjacent to the Project site. Riparian habitats are associated with rivers, stream, or other natural drainages, while sensitive natural communities are associated with rare plant communities and/or plant communities that provide habitat for a candidate, sensitive or special status species. The Project site does not contain a stream, river, or similar natural drainage indicative of riparian habitat, and due to the highly disturbed nature of the Project site and surrounding urbanized area, no rare plant communities or plant communities that provide habitat for sensitive species occur on the Project site. No impacts would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?      No Impact. The proposed Project site is highly disturbed and located in an area that is completely developed. There are no water features on the site. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetlands Mapper, there are no wetlands on the site (USFWS 2014). As a result, no impacts would occur. - 14- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies 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 site is highly disturbed and located within an urbanized area of the City. The only vegetation onsite is ornamental in nature and the site does not support any sensitive wildlife. Due to its location within an urbanized area, the site does not serve as a wildlife corridor. In addition, as a result of both the existing development in the area and the lack of suitable habitat found throughout the surrounding Project area, the Project site does not presently serve as a wildlife nursery site. No impacts would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?      No Impact. The Project consists of reclassification to allow a 41-unit townhome development. The proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and does not contain any significant biological resources. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to biological resources. No impacts would occur. 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 Project site is not located within an area covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion (CDFW 1996). According to the City’s General Plan Green Element, a portion of the City generally south of SR-91 and east of SR-55 falls within the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). This portion of the City is over eight miles from the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan.      - 15- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historical 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 “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • 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 • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The site is currently developed with an RV park, which has a few accessory structures on the site. None of these structures are included on the federal or state lists of historic structures and it is not identified as historic on the Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan (Anaheim 2010). No impacts to historic resources would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?      Less Than Significant Impact. According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 21083.1, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in a significance of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object, or site) about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, archaeological sites within the City are often located along creek areas, ridgelines, and vistas. Many of these types of landforms are located within the Hill and Canyon Area of the City, and one major cultural resource site (CA-Ora-303) has been identified and registered. This site consists of a series of small north- facing rock shelters adjacent to SR-91. This proposed Project site is not located near this registered site. Implementation of the proposed project would require grading, excavation and trenching on the site. The site is highly disturbed and, as such, it is unlikely any significant archaeological resources would be uncovered. In the event that an unexpected find occurs, all work on the site would be stopped until a registered archaeologist is able to evaluate the significance of the find. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines would be followed. Work would not resume until the finding is appropriately mitigated. Following these procedures would ensure project impacts are less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?      Less Than Significant Impact. Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of pre-human activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While the sites are important indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important since they may contain important fossils. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the majority of paleontological resources within the City exist in the Hill and Canyon Areas, northeast of the Project site. The proposed Project site has been completely disturbed by development, and is located within an urbanized area. As such, any paleontological resources which may have existed in the project area have likely been disturbed. Notwithstanding, ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, could unearth undocumented paleontological resources. In the event that an unexpected find occurs, all work on the site would be stopped until a qualified paleontologist is able to evaluate the find. Work would not resume until the finding is appropriately mitigated. Potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with adherence to the regulatory requirements stated in this section. - 16- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?      No Impact. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found beneath the Project site. Due to the level of past disturbance in the project area, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. However, in the unexpected event human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. The California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions regarding human remains, including the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?      ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?      Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that traverse the City. However, the entire Southern California region is considered to be seismically active. The City is located between two major active fault zones; the Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the southwest and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone to the northeast (California Department of Mines and Geology 2014). The Newport-Inglewood fault passes within seven miles of the western limits of the City and it is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter scale. The Whittier-Elsinore fault passes within one mile of the northeastern end of the City and is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter scale. The residential structures proposed for the Project site would be constructed to the standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), as amended by the City, which would reduce risks associated with seismic activity. Implementation of required building codes and requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?      Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction is a major cause of earthquake damage in southern California. According to the State of California’s Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the proposed Project site is located within the Anaheim Quadrangle (CDMG 1999). Based on this map, the Project site is located within a liquefaction zone. Design and construction of the homes would be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) as well as local building codes and ordinances. With adherence to these codes and ordinances, the potential for liquefaction at the site is unlikely. No impacts would occur. - 17- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies iv) Landslides?      No Impact. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Anaheim 7.5-Minute Quadrangle April 15, 1998) indicates that the Project site is not within or adjacent to an earthquake-induced landslide area. No impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?      Less Than Significant Impact. Topographically, the Project site is relatively flat and featureless and, as such, would generally not be susceptible to erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction of the proposed Project. In addition, all construction and grading activities would comply with City’s grading ordinance through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the use of fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers and storm drain inlet protection. Upon project completion, the Project site would be developed with residential homes, paved surfaces and landscaping, which would prevent substantial erosion from occurring. With the adherence to local policies and ordinance, no significant impacts would occur during either construction or operation of the Project. 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. As previously described, the Project site is located within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. However, with adherence to state and local ordinances and building codes, impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant. Additionally, liquefaction may cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. However, is lateral containment is present for those zones, then no significant risk of lateral spreading would exist. Since the liquefaction potential at the Project site is considered low, seismically-induced lateral spreading is not considered a seismic hazard. No significant slopes exist on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the potential for seismically-induced landslides would be considered low. Therefore, impacts associated with an unstable geological unit or soil would be less than significant. 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?      No Impact. Building improvements founded on expansive soils may be damaged by sudden and often induced settlement when these soils are saturated after construction. Expansive soils are typified by low values of dry unit weight and natural water content. The amount of settlement depends on the applied vertical stresses and the extent of available water. Compliance with the UBC as well as local ordinances would reduce any impacts due to expansive soils to less than significant. No impacts would occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?      - 18- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed Project would be connected to the existing sewer network. Therefore, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs), analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHSs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxides (N 2 O x ), fluorinated gases, and ozone. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH 4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by- products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH 4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO 2 , include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (Cal EPA 2006). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, earth’s surface would be about 34 degrees cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring concentrations. Temporary Construction Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to calculate emissions associated with Project construction. Based on modeling results shown in Table 2 (see also Appendix A), the proposed Project would generate an estimated maximum of 183 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CDE)2 per year during construction. Operational Emissions CalEEMod was used to calculate GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed Project (see Appendix A). As shown in Table 2, the proposed Project would generate an estimated maximum of 138 metric tons of CDE per year of operation. Table 2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO 2 e (Metric Tons) Construction 183 Annual Operations 138 Total 321 Less than 3,000* tons CO 2 e? Yes *3,000 tons CO 2 e is the threshold established by SCAQMD’s Proposed Tier 3 Screening Levels. 2 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE or CO2E) is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of GHG, the amount of CO2 *usually in metric tons) that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) when measured over a specified time scale (generally 100 years) - 19- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies The City of Anaheim has not adopted any GHG emissions thresholds that apply to land use projects and has not adopted a GHG emissions reduction plan. Therefore, the proposed Project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD’s recommended/preferred threshold for residential projects of 3,000 metric tons CO 2 E per year (SCAQMD, September 2010). Although the Project would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions, because the total amount of GHG emissions would be lower than the threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year, impacts from GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?      Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emission reduction strategies that were prepared by the California EPA (CalEPA) Climate Action Team (CAT) and measures suggested by the Attorney General have been used as a benchmark for significance and qualitative consideration. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of Executive Order S-3-05 (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov). The Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report was prepared in 2008 by the California Attorney General’s Office. This report specifies measures that may reduce global warming related impacts at the individual project level. As appropriate, the measures can be included as design features of a project, required changes to the project, or imposed as mitigation. Some of the CAT strategies and measures suggested by the Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report are listed below. Several of these actions are already ready required by California regulations. California Air Resources Board • Vehicle Climate Change Standards (AB 143) • Diesel anti-idling • Use of alternative fuels (ethanol) • Heavy-duty vehicle emission reduction measures • Achieving 50% of the statewide recycling goal (AB 939) • Zero waste – high recycling Department of Water Resources • Water use efficiency Energy Commission • Building energy efficiency standards in place and in progress • Appliance energy efficiency standards in place and in progress The Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures are listed below. Many of these overlap with the strategies and measures listed above and are not repeated in this list. Transportation-Related Measures • Transportation emissions reduction • Solid waste reduction strategy • Water use efficiency - 20- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Consistent with these standards and measures, onsite development would reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy and utilize alternative fuels by complying with requirements of the California Building Standards Code – California Energy Code. In addition, the City of Anaheim meets all of the recommendations of AB 939, which reduces waste flows to landfills. The proposed Project would be consistent with CAT and Attorney General strategies. GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the contribution of onsite development to cumulative global climate change impacts would be less than significant. 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials are chemicals defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, an irritant or strong sensitizer that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release. Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation “hazardous materials” regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency “hazardous waste” regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probably frequency and severity of consequences from the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations. The proposed Project includes demolition, grading, and construction activities associated with the construction of 41 townhome units. Construction of the proposed Project would likely include the use of potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. These materials would be used in conjunction with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. All potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored according to manufacturer’s guidelines as well as according to all applicable federal, state and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Operation of residential use proposed typically involves the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials, including cleaning solvents, paint, pesticides, and herbicides. However, these materials would be contained, stored and used according to manufacturer’s guidelines as well as according to all applicable federal, state and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced through continued compliance with these standards and regulations. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant. 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 involve the use of acutely hazardous materials or waste, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used according to manufacturers’ guidelines, as well as according to all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. As previously discussed, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, which would subsequently reduce the potential for upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials due to foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. - 21- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies 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. Although there is a school within one-quarter mile of this site (Savanna High School), the proposed Project is residential in nature and no substantial effects are anticipated from the proposed Project. As previously discussed, both construction and operation of the proposed Project would not generate acutely hazardous materials or wastes, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines as well as according to all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts associated with emitting or handling hazardous emissions or materials within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?      No Impact. According to the US EPA’s Enviromapper program, the proposed Project site does not fall on a list of hazardous materials sites and, thus, would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impacts would occur. 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 Project site is not located within an airport land use plan that would result in a safety hazard for people residing in the proposed homes. No impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?      g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?      h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?      No Impact (f, g and h). The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop. The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the site is located within an established residential suburban community which is not adjacent to any wildlands area. Therefore, the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur. - 22- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?      Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would include grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities that have the potential to cause erosion that would subsequently degrade water quality and/or violate water quality standards. As a result, the proposed Project must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), helps control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. Additionally, the Project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP must also include project construction features designed to protect against stormwater runoff, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs). Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, should the BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan, should the site discharge directly into a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in the SWPPP. Incorporation of these policies and ordinances and the requirements contained within would reduce project impacts to less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. 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 City of Anaheim receives water from two main sources: the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of southern California (MWD). Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and i mported water is delivered to the City through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection. According to the City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), local groundwater has been the least expensive and most reliable source of water supply for the City. The City depends heavily on the groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin each year. The proposed Project includes the development of 41 townhome units. Due to the small size of the project, the supply of local water needed to support these homes is not substantial. Therefore, the production rates of local wells would not be significantly impacted. Although the proposed Project would result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces on the site, development would not result in a significant deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. No significant impact on groundwater supplies would occur. - 23- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?      No Impact. The internal drainage patterns of the site would be slightly altered by Project development as the site is developed with 41 new townhome units. However, the Project would not alter any drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. The Project would not involve an alteration of the course of a stream or river. Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from the project would, for the most part, occur during the Project’s site preparation and earthmoving phase. Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements, as they apply to the site, would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts. No significant impacts would occur. 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. The Project consists of a reclassification to allow the construction of 41 townhome units. The site is currently developed with an RV Park. As such, a portion of the site is paved. Existing drainage at the site consists of sheetflow runoff of incident rainfall derived from within the property boundaries. Additional impervious surfaces created by the Project would increase stormwater runoff on the site. A preliminary WQMP, conceptual grading/drainage plan and Drainage Report would be required to show adequate drainage for the Project. Although drainage patterns on the site would be slightly altered due to Project development, all runoff would be adequately channeled and collected ensuring that any drainage impacts are less than significant. No significant impact would occur. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?      Less than Significant Impact. The Project consists of reclassification to allow the construction of 41 townhome units. Currently, the site is developed with an RV park. Existing structures and paving would be demolished. Project development would result on the conversion of some existing pervious soils to impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the current rate of absorption and increasing the volume of surface water runoff experienced at the site. Project development would include the construction of a drainage system that would be adequate to carry the site’s anticipated volume of stormwater runoff. Design of the drainage system would be finalized during the preparation of the Project’s grading and engineering plans. The total volume of water runoff produced by the Project would not exceed the capacity of the area’s planned drainage system. Additionally, runoff water from the site would not contain any substantial quantities of contaminants and would not result in a significant additional source of polluted runoff. No significant impacts would occur. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?      No Impact. Compliance with the applicable local, State and Federal water quality regulations would ensure that construction and operation of the Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, no impacts to water quality would occur as a result of the Project. - 24- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?      h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?      No Impact (g and h). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0129J (dated December 3, 2009), the Project site is located in Zone X – an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. Therefore, the project site is not located within a 100 year flood zone. Impacts associated with flooding would be less than significant. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?      j) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by seiche or mudflow?      No Impact (i and j). According to the Dam Inundation Map contained in the Safety Element of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, the Project is not located in a flood hazard area resulting from dam failure. Additionally, the site is located in a suburban setting and not within the vicinity of bodies of water that expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by seiche or mudflow. No impacts would occur. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?      No Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units. The Project is compatible with existing uses in the area and would not be a barrier or divide an established community. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?      Less than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units, which is consistent with the proposed “RM-3” Multiple-Family Residential land use designation. The intent of the “RM-3” Multiple-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density land use designations in the General Plan. No impacts would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?      - 25- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies No Impact. As discussed in Section IV above, the Project is not located within an NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts would occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?      b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?      No Impact (a and b). According to the California Geologic Survey, and as illustrated in the Green Element of the City’s General Plan, there are no significant mineral resources that exist in the Project area. No mineral extraction activities occur on or adjacent to the Project site. No impacts would occur. 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?      Less Than Significant. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or loudness. Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep. The proposed Project site is located in an urbanized built out area within Anaheim. The area surrounding the site is mostly commercial in nature. Operation Upon completion of construction, the project would result in 41 new townhome units. The main source of noise would be vehicle noise from traffic trips of the residents. The proposed Project would result in 270 daily traffic trips (ITE Trip Generation Manual 2012). However, because the site is currently developed, the net number of trips would be less. The new net number of trips (63) is an extremely small percentage of the daily traffic on the surrounding roadways and would not constitute a significant increase in noise. No significant impacts would occur. Construction The proposed project would generate noise during construction activities. Equipment used during construction could create noise impacts through the duration of the construction process. However, these impacts are temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Chapter 6.70 of the City’s noise ordinance exempts construction noise between eh hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holiday. Adherence to the City Noise ordinance would reduce construction noise to less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?      - 26- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. Primarily commercial uses surround the Project site. The construction phase and associated construction equipment could produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as demolition, grading and building construction activities; however, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The Project would be constructed using typical construction techniques and pile driving would not be used during construction activities. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not cause excessive groundborne noise or vibration. Post-construction onsite activities would be limited to residential uses that would not generate excessive groundborne noise or vibration. No impacts would occur. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?      Less Than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 41 new townhome units. Noise sources associated with the Project would be associated with vehicle noise and standard residential mechanical equipment. Long- term ambient noise levels would be similar to those which exist in the surrounding area and, therefore, would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. No impacts would occur. 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. Construction activities would result in a temporary periodic increase in ambient noise levels; however, the City exempts noise generated by construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code requirement would reduce any Project impacts to less than significant. 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 isn’t located in an airport land use plan. No impacts from aircraft noise would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?      No Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop. No impacts would occur. 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)?      - 27- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes of the construction of 41 new townhomes. Based on the City’s average for the number of persons per household (3.3), it is anticipated that approximately 135 residents would be generated by the Project. The proposed Project site falls within Census Tract No. 868.03 which, according to the 2010 United States Census, has a population of 6,366 residents. Therefore, the proposed increase in residents would represent 2.1 percent increase in population to the Census Tract and less than one percent increase in the Citywide population. Therefore, the potential increase in population within the immediate area would be considered less than significant. No impacts would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      No Impact (b and c). The proposed project site is currently developed with an RV Park. There are no permanent residences located on the site As a result, no new replacement housing would be required and no people would be displaced. No impacts would occur. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?      Less Than Significant Impact. Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Fire & Rescue (AF&R) provides fire protection services in the City of Anaheim. The AF&R operates 12 fire stations comprised of ten engine companies and five truck companies, and employs 227 firefighters, six battalion chiefs, and various other support staff. The Department is responsible for all fire, rescue and medical aid calls in the City. The AF&R maintains a response time goal that requires the first engine company to respond within five minutes to 90 percent of all incidents and eight minutes to the remaining ten percent of incidents. The AF&R also requires a maximum of ten minutes for the first truck company to respond to 100 percent of all incidents. The construction of 41 townhomes would incrementally increase demands for fire protection services. However, such increases would be considered minimal, especially considering the site is currently developed with an RV park, and demand for fire service would be met with existing firefighting resources. No impacts would occur. Police protection?      Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) provides police protection services to the City of Anaheim. The APD operates out of its headquarters at 425 S. Harbor Boulevard, the East Station at 8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road and the West Station at 320 South Beach Boulevard. The Department employs 400 sworn officers and support staff of over 173. The Department is responsible for patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist-oriented policing, and detention facilities (City of Anaheim 2012b). The construction of 41 townhomes would incrementally increase demands for fire protection services. However, such increases would be considered minimal and demand for police service would be met with existing police resources. No impacts would occur. Schools?      - 28- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. The Magnolia School District would provide school services for students in kindergarten through eighth grades and the Anaheim Union High School District would provide school services for students in the ninth through twelfth grades for students in the Project area. The proposed 41-unit townhome development would be located in an area primarily built out with similar residential uses in the area and there are schools nearby that would serve the propose Project. Due to the small size of the Project, it would result in a nominal increase in students that would likely attend local public schools. In addition, SB50 requires the payment of school facility fees for all new development. Payment of these fees would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Parks?      Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction 41 townhome units that would result in an increase of approximately 135 residents. A portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize the various existing parks and recreation facility operated by the City of Anaheim. The closest park to the Project site is Maxwell Park. The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) authorizes the City of Anaheim to require developers to pay fees as a means of ensuring adequate provision of parkland. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the applicant would be assessed an In-Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees would help offset any impacts to the proposed Project’s contribution to an increase in population and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facility would be less than significant. Other public facilities?      Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes the construction of 41 townhomes that would result in an increase in approximately 135 residents. A portion of these residents could patronize local library branches operated by the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim Public Library system consists of a Central Library, five branches, the Heritage House (former Carnegie Library), and a Bookmobile. The population increase of approximately 2 percent of the currently population of the Census Tract and less than one half of a percent of the total City population would not significantly impact the Public Library system. As a result, impacts associated with library services and facilities would be less than significant. XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?      b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?      Less Than Significant Impact (a and b). As previously discussed, a portion of the Project’s residents are anticipated to patronize the various existing parks and recreational facilities operated by the City. The closest park to the Project site is Maxwell Park. The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) authorizes the City of Anaheim to require developers to pay fees as a means of ensuring adequate provision of parkland. According the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Housing Element, the applicant would be assessed an In Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees would help offset any impacts due to the proposed Project’s contribution to an increase in population and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Additionally, these fees would go towards the maintenance of existing recreational facilities to prevent physical deterioration. As a result, the impact to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. - 29- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular circulation would be provided by a series of private streets and driveways. The main entrance to the residential community would be located off of West Lincoln Avenue. That driveway would provide access to the homes and site parking by way of six private drives. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), the proposed residential project would generate 2703daily traffic trips and 212 PM peak hour trips. However, the project site is currently developed with an RV Park that has 69 camping spaces available. This park currently generates 207 4 daily trips and 194 PM peak hour trips. As a result, the proposed project would generate 63 net new daily trips and 2 net additional PM peak hour trips. The General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies require a traffic analysis be complete if the Project results in any of the following: • When the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips from the proposed development; • Projects on the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System which generate 1,600 average daily trips (ADT) or those which are adjacent to CMP Highway System which generate 2,400 ADT; • Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either AM or PM peak hours to any monitored CMP intersection; or • Any project where variations from the City’s standards and guidelines are proposed. As the proposed Project does not meet any of the aforementioned criteria, the threshold for a traffic analysis threshold is not met. The increase of 63 daily and 2 peak hour trips is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would result from the Project. 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. Since 1994, the CMP has required a traffic impact analysis (TIA) be generated when a project would generate 2,400 or more ADT (OC Transportation Authority 2011). The proposed Project would generate 270 ADT (63 net new trips), a number substantially less than the CMP threshold. A CMP analysis is not required. No impacts would occur. 3 Based on 9.57 daily trips per unit and 0.52 trips per unit for the PM peak hour. 4 Based on 3 daily trips per campsite and .27 trips per campsite for the PM peak hour. - 30- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location those results in substantial safety risks?      No Impact. The Project would consist of 41 three-story townhome units. The structures would be consistent with the heights of nearby structures and would not impact air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?      No Impact. The proposed Project would consist of the construction of 41 townhomes in an area developed with mostly commercial uses. There are no hazardous road conditions, including sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Each home would be accessed via its own driveway. In addition, due to the small size of the Project, a minimal number of trips would be generated. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. No impacts would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?      No Impact. The Project site is located with an established community and Project plans have been reviewed by Anaheim Fire and Rescue to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the site. No impacts would occur. 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?      No Impact. The Project is consistent with property’s General Plan land use designation and would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs such as the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan (Anaheim 2013), supporting alternative transportation and programs related to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No impacts would occur. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?      Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the generation of wastewater. As described in Section 17b, the proposed Project would generate approximately 9,430 gallons per day (gpd). The existing Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater facilities that serve the Project site currently have a surplus capacity, as required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Currently, OCSD wastewater facilities have a surplus capacity of approximately 240 million gallons per day. The wastewater generated would be minimal and would comprise less than one percent of the existing surplus amount. Wastewater generation would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the existing OCSD facilities. Therefore, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?      - 31- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be served by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). The proposed Project is located within a developed area and there are existing water mains in the streets surrounding the proposed Project. The Project would be required to connect to these existing water lines. The proposed 41 townhome units would use approximately 10,373 gallons of water per day. Due to the small size of the Project, no significant impacts on existing water infrastructure would occur. Wastewater in the Project area is collected by gravity sewers owned, operated and maintained by the OCSD. Existing sewer lines are located in the streets adjacent to the proposed Project. The proposed 41 townhome units would generate approximately 9,430 gpd of wastewater. Due to the minimal size of the Project, the existing facilities would be adequate to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the proposed Project. No impacts to water or wastewater treatment facilities would occur. 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site, which would increase stormwater runoff from the site. The project site currently has no connection to the existing storm drain system. Therefore, the project proposes to use a STORMTECH storm drain/WQMD system, which would be privately maintained. Through this system, stormwater from the Project site would be collected by in internal drainage system and delivered to the local area drainage system. The project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The project would not require the expansion of existing facilities. No significant impacts would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code § 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?      Less Than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Anaheim 2011) assumed General Plan build out for this site; therefore, there are no anticipated water supply deficiencies that would affect this Project and the Project would not result in the need to obtain new water entitlements. No impacts would occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?      Less Than significant Impact. As discussed previously, both OCSD wastewater treatment facilities that would serve the proposed project have design capacities that exceed their current utilization. In addition, the Project is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and would be served by the existing sanitary sewer system and the Orange County Sanitation District system. No impacts would occur. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?      - 32- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?      Less Than Significant Impact (f and g). According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) single family residential land uses generated an estimated 12.23 pounds of waste per dwelling unit per day. Based on this number, a total of 501 pounds of solid waste would be generated per day. AB939 requires local jurisdictions to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste into recycling. As of 2010, the City is diverting approximately 63 percent of its waste into recycling. Waste from the City is currently being diverted to the Olinda Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea and the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine. Combined, the two landfills accept approximately 23,500 tons of waste per day, or over seven million tons annually. As a result, the project’s contribution of 501 pounds per day is less than one half of one percent of the daily amount generated and, thus, would not significantly impact landfill operations. No impacts would occur. h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?      i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas?      j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?      k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?      Less Than Significant Impact (h, i, j and k). The Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units in a built-out, suburban setting. The site and the surrounding neighborhood are fully served by various utility service providers. There are no anticipated significant service or system upgrades needed to serve the proposed homes. Any increase in demand for these services would be considered to be less than significant. No impacts would occur. 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?      Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the environmental checklist, the Project does not 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 impacts would occur. - 33- Environmental Issues Significant Impact Less Than Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies 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. The Project is located within the SCAQMD which has been designated as a nonattainment area for certain criteria pollutants. Typical construction activities will generate specific criteria pollutants; however, due to the minimal size of the Project, it is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable impact. No impacts would occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?      Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the environmental checklist, the Project consists of the construction of 41 townhome units. The Project would not result in any significant impacts and would not, either directly or indirectly, result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. No impacts would occur. - 34- References Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Accessed on June 6, 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. 2014. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008. California Department of Conservation (DOC). Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County, California. Available at: ftp://ftp.conserv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf. Accessed on June 5, 2013. DOC. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. 1997 DOC. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County. 2010. DOC. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. April 15, 1998. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. 1996. Available at: http:///www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/status/OrangeCoastal/. Accessed on June 5, 2013. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed on August 4, 2014. California Department of Transportation. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) [Scenic Highway] Routes. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Accessed on August 4, 2014. California Geologic Survey. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. September 11, 2008. City of Anaheim (Anaheim). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. City of Anaheim. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. April 2013. City of Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. Available at: http://www.anaheim.net/planning/aRT/PlanCouncil-May2010.pdf. Accessed on August 4, 2014. City of Anaheim. General Plan Circulation Element Green Element: Mineral Resource Map Noise Element. Pg. N-9 Safety Element: Dam Inundation Map City of Anaheim. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004. City of Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. City of Anaheim. Municipal Code. 1974; updated as recently as June 2014. Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County Strategic Plan. December 2001; updated November 2007. Orange County Public Works. Drainage Area Management Plan. 2003. Orange County Transportation Authority. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. 2011. - 35- Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. 2008. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf. Accessed on August 4, 2014 Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2012-air-quality- management-plan/final-2012-aqmp -(february-2013)/main-document-final-2012.pdf. Accessed on August 4, 2014. SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed on August 5, 2014. State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Pg. 4. United States Census of Population and Housing. 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act). November 27, 2002. US EPA. The Green Book, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. December 14, 2012. - 36- ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 00West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA Development ApplicAtionArchitecturAl SubmittAl Sheet inDex 00 cover pAge 01 ArchitecturAl Site plAn 02 tuck-unDer blDg plAnS 5-plex 03 tuck-unDer blDg plAnS 5-plex 04 tuck-unDer elevAtion 5-plex 05 tuck-unDer elevAtionS 5-plex 06 tuck-unDer blDg plAnS 4-plex 07 tuck-unDer blDg plAnS 4-plex 08 tuck-unDer elevAtion 4-plex 09 tuck-unDer elevAtionS 4-plex 10 3-Story blDg plAnS (ADA) 5-plex 11 3-Story blDg plAnS (ADA) 5-plex 12 3-Story elevAtion (ADA) 5-plex 13 3-Story elevAtionS (ADA) 5-plex 28 3-Story unit plAn 1 29 3-Story unit plAn 2 30 tuck-unDer color/mAteriAlS 31 3-Story color/mAteriAlS 14 3-Story blDg plAnS 5-plex 15 3-Story blDg plAnS 5-plex 16 3-Story elevAtion 5-plex 17 3-Story elevAtionS 5-plex 18 3-Story blDg plAnS 6-plex 19 3-Story blDg plAnS 6-plex 20 3-Story elevAtion 6-plex 21 3-Story elevAtionS 6-plex 22 3-Story blDg plAnS 7-plex 23 3-Story blDg plAnS 7-plex 24 3-Story elevAtion 7-plex 25 3-Story elevAtionS 7-plex 26 tuck-unDer unit plAn 1 27 tuck-unDer unit plAn 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 01 1234 56 78 TUCK-UNDER TOWNHOMES TUCK-UNDER TOWNHOMES 3-STORY TOWNHOMES 3-STORY TOWNHOMES 3-STORY TOWNHOMES PASSIVE PARK PASSIVE PARK PASEO W/ ACCESSIBLE UNITS PASEOPASEOPARKWest LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA ArchitecturAl Site plAn Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 02West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA tuck-unDer townhomeS FirSt levelbuilDing 1 SeconD levelbuilDing 1 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 03West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA thirD levelbuilDing 1 rooF levelbuilDing 1 tuck-unDer townhomeS 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 04West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA tuck-unDer townhomeS builDing 1Front elevAtionview From lincoln1 3 2 4 concrete ‘S’ tile rooF Stucco FASciA wrought iron rAiling Stucco mAteriAl key 31132245 precASt trim/moulDing5 66 terrA cottA wAll cAp6 Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 05West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA builDing 1right elevAtion builDing 1reAr elevAtion builDing 1leFt elevAtion tuck-unDertownhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 06West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA FirSt levelbuilDing 3 & 4 SeconD levelbuilDing 3 & 4 tuck-unDer townhomeS 4-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 07West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA thirD levelbuilDing 3 & 4 rooF levelbuilDing 3 & 4 tuck-unDer townhomeS 4-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 08West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA tuck-unDer townhomeS builDing 3 & 4Front elevAtionview From pArk reFer to pAge 04 For mAteriAl key Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 09 builDing 3 & 4right elevAtion builDing 3 & 4reAr elevAtion builDing 3 & 4leFt elevAtion West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA tuck-unDer townhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 10West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA FirSt levelbuilDing 2 SeconD levelbuilDing 2 3-Story townhomeS 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 11West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA thirD levelbuilDing 2 rooF levelbuilDing 2 3-Story townhomeS 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 12 builDing 2Front elevAtionview From pASeo West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeS 1 3 2 4 concrete ‘S’ tile rooF wooD FASciA AnD expoSeD rAFter tAilS Stucco wrought iron rAiling & ShelveS mAteriAl key 4 411325 wooD poSt AnD beAm5 DecorAtive tileS6 6 Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 13 builDing 2right elevAtion builDing 2reAr elevAtion builDing 2leFt elevAtion 3-Story townhomeS West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 14West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA FirSt levelbuilDing 5 & 6 SeconD levelbuilDing 5 & 6 3-Story townhomeS 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 15West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA thirD levelbuilDing 5 & 6 rooF levelbuilDing 5 & 6 3-Story townhomeS 5-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 16 builDing 5 & 6Front elevAtionview From pASeo West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeS reFer to pAge 12 For mAteriAl key Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 17 builDing 5 & 6right elevAtion builDing 5 & 6reAr elevAtion builDing 5 & 6leFt elevAtion 3-Story townhomeS West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 18West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA FirSt levelbuilDing 7 SeconD levelbuilDing 7 3-Story townhomeS 6-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 19West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA thirD levelbuilDing 7 rooF levelbuilDing 7 3-Story townhomeS 6-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 20 builDing 7Front elevAtionview From pASeo West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeS reFer to pAge 12 For mAteriAl key Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 21 builDing 7right elevAtion builDing 7reAr elevAtion builDing 7leFt elevAtion 3-Story townhomeS West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 22West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA FirSt levelbuilDing 8 SeconD levelbuilDing 8 3-Story townhomeS 7-plex builDing plAnS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 23 thirD levelbuilDing 8 rooF levelbuilDing 8 3-Story townhomeS 7-plex builDing plAnS West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 24 builDing 8Front elevAtionview From pArk West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeS reFer to pAge 12 For mAteriAl key Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 25 builDing 8right elevAtion builDing 8reAr elevAtion builDing 8leFt elevAtion West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 26West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA plAn 11,511 SF bASement 62 SF FirSt Floor 740 SF SeconD Floor 709 SF tuck-unDertownhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 27West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA plAn 2(enD conDition)1,541 SF bASement 62 SF FirSt Floor 770 SF SeconD Floor 709 SF tuck-unDertownhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 28West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA plAn 11,535 SF FirSt Floor 132 SF SeconD Floor 664 SF thirD Floor 739 SF 3-Story townhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 29West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA plAn 2(enD conDition)1,559 SF FirSt Floor 132 SF SeconD Floor 664 SF thirD Floor 763 SF 3-Story townhomeS Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 30West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA tuck-unDer townhomeScolor/mAteriAlS pAlette Project: 13011 Date: 06-16-14 3100 Bristol Suite 400 Co sta Mesa, CA 92626 P: 949-756-0818 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-2430 31West LincoLn Avenue toWnhomes AnAheim, cALiforniA 3-Story townhomeScolor/mAteriAlS pAlette THE WORLD’S STANDARD FOR SOLARTM SunPowerTM E18 Solar Panels provide today’s high efficiency and performance. Powered by SunPower MaxeonTM cell technology, the E18 series provides panel conversion efficiencies of up to 18.5%. The E18’s low voltage temperature coefficient and exceptional low-light performance attributes provide outstanding energy delivery per peak power watt. 18% EFFICIENCY SunPower’s signature black™ panels provide the highest efficiency for their product class and a sleek, black appearance TRANSFORMERLESS INVERTER COMPATIBILITY Comprehensive inverter compatibility ensures that customers can pair the highest- efficiency panels with the highest-efficiency inverters, maximizing system output POSITIVE POWER TOLERANCE Positive tolerance ensures customers receive the rated power or higher for every panel RELIABLE AND ROBUST DESIGN SunPower’s unique MaxeonTM cell technology and advanced module design ensure industry-leading reliability sunpowercorp.com SUNPOWER’S HIGH EFFICIENCY ADVANTAGE 5% 10% 15% 20% THIN FILM CONVENTIONAL 18%19% 14% 10% 20% Patented all-back-contact solar cell, providing the industry’s highest efficiency and reliability. E18/230 and E18/225 SOLAR PANELS © 2011 SunPower Corporation. SUNPOWER, the SunPower Logo, and THE WORLD’S STANDARD FOR SOLAR, and MAXEON are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunPower Corporation in the US and other countries as well. All Rights Reserved. Specifications included in this datasheet are subject to change without notice. sunpowercorp.com Document # 001-68203 Rev*A / A4_EN Please read safety and installation instructions before using this product, visit sunpowercorp.com for more details. CS 11_267 MODELS: SPR-230NE-BLK-D, SPR-225NE-BLK-D ELECTRICAL DATA Measured at Standard Test Conditions (STC): Irradiance 1000W/m², AM 1.5, and cell temperature 25° C Nominal Power (+5/-0%) Pnom 230 W 225 W Cell Efficiency η 22.7 % 22.2 % Panel Efficiency η 18.5 % 18.1 % Rated Voltage Vmpp 40.5 V 40.5 V Rated Current Impp 5.68 A 5.55 A Open-Circuit Voltage Voc 48.2 V 48.0 V Short-Circuit Current Isc 6.05 A 5.93 A Maximum System Voltage IEC 1000 V Temperature Coefficients Power (P)– 0.38 %/K Voltage (Voc)– 132.5 mV/K Current (Isc)3.5 mA /K NOCT 46° C +/– 2° C Series Fuse Rating 20 A Limiting Reverse Current (3 strings)IR 15.1 A 14.8 A Grounding Positive grounding not required TESTED OPERATING CONDITIONS Temperature – 40° C to +85° C Max load 550 kg/m2 (5400 Pa), front (e.g. snow) w/specified mounting configurations 245 kg/m2 (2400 Pa) front and back (e.g. wind) Impact Resistance Hail: 25 mm at 23 m/s WARRANTIES AND CERTIFICATIONS Warranties 25-year limited power warranty 10-year limited product warranty Certifications IEC 61215 Ed. 2, IEC 61730 (SCII), MCS ELECTRICAL DATA Measured at Nominal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT): Irradiance 800W/m2, 20° C, wind 1 m/s Nominal Power Pnom 170 W 166 W Rated Voltage Vmpp 37.2 V 37.2 V Rated Current Impp 4.57 A 4.47 A Open-Circuit Voltage Voc 45.0 V 44.8 V Short-Circuit Current Isc 4.90 A 4.80 A Cells 72 SunPower MaxeonTM cells Front Glass High-transmission tempered glass Junction Box IP-65 rated with 3 bypass diodes 32 x 155 x 128 mm Output Cables 1000 mm cables / Multi-Contact (MC4) connectors Frame Anodised aluminium alloy type 6063 (black) Weight 15.0 kg MECHANICAL DATA DIMENSIONS E18/230 and E18/225 SOLAR PANELS Current/voltage characteristics with dependence on irradiance and module temperature. 1000 W/m² at 50° C 800 W/m² 500 W/m² 1000 W/m² 200 W/m² Voltage (V)Current (A)I-V CURVE 915 36.02 1535 60.45 4X 231 9.09 2X 577 22.70 75429.692X 199.57.8512 .47 1200 47.24 180 7.07 2X 11.0 .43 322 12.69 (A) (B) 46 1.81 2X 2007.852X 30 1.19 (B)BOTHENDS 1559 61.39 79831.42MM(IN)(B) - GROUNDING HOLES 10X Ø4.2 [.17](A) - MOUNTING HOLES12X Ø6.6 [.26] SHEET OFSCALE SIZE REV.DOCUMENT NUMBERB AA B B C C D D 1 12 23 3 4 4 001-53963 MODULE ASSEMBLY, 72-CELL, DATASHEET DRAWING *B 1:12 11 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION OF THE SUNPOWER CORPORATION, AND ITS RECEIPT ORPOSSESSION DOES NOT CONVEY ANY RIGHTSTO REPRODUCE, DISCLOSE ITS CONTENTS,OR TO MANUFACTURE, USE, OR SELLANYTHING IT MAY DESCRIBE.REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE, OR USEWITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONOF THE SUNPOWER CORPORATION ISSTRICTLY FORBIDDEN. DRAWN DATE CHECKED Z. Kinyon 2/10/11 MATERIAL FINISH DO NOT SCALE DRAWING DECIMALS ANGLES DATE 3939 NORTH FIRST STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95134 USA(408) 240-5500 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:DIMENSIONS ARE IN MMTOLERANCES ARE: 001-04212 DRAWING TEMPLATEB SIZE MILLIMETER 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. ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2014 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730; VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754; AND, APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION LOCATION: 641 – 701 South Brookhurst Street APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Kye Evans with MBK Homes. The agent representing the applicant is Greg McCafferty. The property owners are Samir Patel and Ramandbai Patel. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications: 1) A Conditional Use Permit to permit a 44-unit, detached, small-lot single family residential project with modified development standards; 2) A Variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code; 3) An Appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to deny a deviation from the City’s private street standard pertaining to minimum street width and the provision of parkways and sidewalks. 4) A Tentative Tract Map to establish a 44-lot residential subdivision; and RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to the October 6, 2014 meeting to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address site design issues, and allow staff to correctly advertise the redesigned project. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754, AND APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 6 BACKGROUND: The 2.49-acre project site is located in the General Commercial (C-G), Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay zone and includes one property developed with a motel and a portion of an adjacent property that is partially developed with a motel. The site is also located within the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zone; the purpose of this overlay zone is to provide “by right” housing development opportunities consistent with a property’s residential General Plan land use designation. The site is designated for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding uses include an office building to the north, a motel to the south, single-family residences in unincorporated County of Orange to the west, and a neighborhood shopping center and single-family residences to the east, across Brookhurst Street. This project was intended to implement the RO Overlay zone. The RO Overlay zone would allow multi-family development subject to the RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone development standards. The project is designed as a small lot, single family development using the RS-4 development standards. However, the RO Overlay zone needs to be implemented by the RM-3 zone. Therefore, this hearing needs to be continued in order to include notice of the request to reclassify the property to the RS-4 zone, or allow the applicant time to redesign the project to RM-3 zone standards. Although this item cannot be acted on by the Commission until the project is accurately advertised, staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing in order to allow community members the opportunity to speak on this item, and provide the Commission the opportunity to provide feedback on the project design to staff and the applicant. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct 44 detached single-family residences using the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zone development standards. The residences would range in size from 1,622 to 1,746 square feet. Five two-story homes are proposed on Lots 14 – 18 adjacent to existing single family residences located in the County of Orange. The remaining 39 homes would be three story homes with roof decks. The homes along the north and south property lines are adjacent to commercial uses. Five different floor plan types are proposed consisting of two and three bedroom units. The homes would have contemporary-style architecture with five different exterior elevation styles. The designs would feature contrasting earth tone colored stucco walls, window trim, decorative wrought iron railing, and tile roofs. The residential lots would range in size from 1,330 to 2,513 square feet. Each property would have a two-car garage, no driveways, and one open parking space adjacent to the garage. Eight- foot high block walls are proposed to separate the proposed development from the adjacent commercial uses on the north and south sides of the property. Six-foot high fences are proposed to separate the private rear yards for Lots 27 through 44. A 15 to 20-foot wide planter would be provided along the Brookhurst Street frontage. This landscape area would be planted with groundcover, shrubs and trees to screen the block wall and deter graffiti. The new neighborhood would be served by a private, non-gated street forming a loop connection to Brookhurst Street. The 24-foot wide private street would not include sidewalks, landscaped parkways, or street parking. No common recreational areas are proposed. A detailed development summary is included as Attachment 7 to this report. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754, AND APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION August 25, 2014 Page 3 of 6 ANALYSIS: Following is staff's analysis and recommendation for each requested action: Conditional Use Permit: Development in the RS-4 Zone is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in order to ensure quality design of the small-lot, single-family residential land uses allowed in this zone. The Zoning Code provides that the size and width of lots within the development be established by the site plan approved through the conditional use permit. The project includes lot sizes ranging from 1,420 square feet to 2,365 square feet. Lot widths range from 29 feet to 43 feet. The proposed density for the project is 17.6 dwelling units per acre. The Zoning Code allows for modification of the required lot coverage and building setbacks in the RS-4 Zone through approval of a conditional use permit. The following modifications are being requested by the applicant: RS-4 Zone Development Standard Required Proposed Maximum Lot Coverage 50% 39-54% Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 2-6 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 3-5 feet to prop. line 0-5 feet landscaping Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 5-10 feet Lot Coverage: The project would have lot coverages ranging from 39 to 54% where a maximum lot coverage of 50% would typically be permitted. Due to the small size of the two to three bedroom units, staff believes that the minor 4% modification is appropriate for this small-lot development. Front Yards: The Zoning Code requires 10 foot front yard setbacks and two-foot to six- foot front yards are proposed for interior Lots 18 through 44. Staff believes that the proposed design would not provide a sufficient separation between the three story homes and the private street, resulting in an alley appearance. Staff is not supportive of this modification. Side Yards: The proposed project includes open parking spaces between covered garages within side yards where walkways or landscape would typically be provided. Due to the small size of the lots, these parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to the neighboring residence. This design provides no buffer separating cars from the adjacent residences. Staff believes it would be preferable to relocate these parking spaces to common parking areas in order to provide landscaping in the yard areas between the houses. Rear Yards: Staff is concerned about the proposed five to ten-foot rear yards for interior Lots 27 through 44. A five foot deep yard would not provide adequate space for private recreation and no common recreation areas are provided as part of this project. Maximum Structural Height: The Zoning Code currently does not allow three-story residences in the RS-4 zone. A City-initiated Code Amendment to conditionally permit CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754, AND APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION August 25, 2014 Page 4 of 6 three story residences in this zone is on the agenda as Item No. 6. A thorough analysis of this code amendment is provided in that report. Staff believes that three-story residences are appropriate in the RS-4 zone in some locations, especially where homes would be adjacent to non-residential uses or when developed with an appropriate setback. However, staff is not supportive of the three-story residence with a roof deck that is proposed on Lot 19, at the southwest corner of the property, due to the proposed 15 foot setback to the single family residence to the west. Staff believes that this lot should be developed with a maximum two-story residence to protect the privacy of the adjacent residents. Parking Variance: The project provides 127 parking spaces, consisting of 88 spaces in enclosed garages and 39 uncovered surface spaces. This results in three parking spaces per unit. A total of 176 spaces are required, based on the Code required four spaces per unit for single-family detached residences. To justify providing three parking spaces per unit, the applicant submitted a parking study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. The study is included as Attachment No. 6. The study identifies a parking demand of 2.89 parking spaces per unit for the project. This conclusion is based upon the observed parking demand of similar projects in Gardena and Riverside. The City’s parking and traffic consultant conducted a peer review of the parking study and concluded that three spaces per unit would be sufficient for the proposed 44-unit project. This conclusion was based partially upon parking counts taken at a similar 68-unit neighborhood located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street in the City of Anaheim. Three parking spaces per unit are provided in this complex. This is an appropriate comparison based on the number and size of the units. Parking counts were taken at this property on Thursday, June 17 and Saturday, June 29 at 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight. The observations showed a maximum parking demand of 2.46 spaces per unit during the survey periods. Staff supports the parking variance based upon the conclusions in the parking study, as reviewed by the City’s parking consultant. Appeal of City Engineer’s Decision: The City’s Private Street Standard No. 162 requires a 28- foot street width when no on-street parking is provided. The standard also requires 6-foot wide parkways and 4-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of a street. The applicant has proposed street widths of 24 feet and no parkways or sidewalks on either side of the streets. A graphic depiction of the private street modifications is provided in the development summary (Attachment No. 5). The City Engineer denied the request by the applicant to modify the City’s private street standard. The request was denied because of safety concerns resulting from the lack of separation between pedestrian and vehicular circulation, line of sight obstructions resulting from the narrow width of the street and proximity of the residences abutting the street, the potential for vehicular speeding on long and narrow streets with no vehicle speed reduction measures, and the street design requiring the shared use of the narrow path of travel by pedestrians, bicycles, and cars. The applicant’s letter of justification and the City Engineer’s decision letter are included as Attachment Nos. 3 and 4 to this report. Tentative Tract Map: The proposed 2.49-acre property includes three parcels that would be combined to create the proposed housing tract. The proposed tentative tract map includes 44 numbered residential lots and three lettered lots designated for common open space and vehicular circulation that would be maintained by a homeowners’ association. The proposed density of 17.6 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the property’s Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754, AND APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION August 25, 2014 Page 5 of 6 Staff also reviewed the proposed development using the City’s adopted “Guidelines for Small- Lot Development.” These guidelines encourage various design features for small-lot residential projects that promote high quality development. The guidelines address items such as internal circulation, interface with adjacent land uses, front yard landscaping, and open space. Staff has determined that the proposed development would not be consistent with the intent of these guidelines based on the analysis described above. General Plan Community Design Element: Staff believes that the proposed development would not be consistent with the following goals of the Community Design Element of the General Plan: • Continue to maintain and improve the visual image and quality of life of single family neighborhoods. • Strengthen the important elements of residential street that unify and enhance the character of the neighborhood, including parkways, mature street trees, compatible setbacks, and a unified range of architectural detailing. • Require new and infill development to be of compatible scale, materials, and massing as existing development. • Improve the pedestrian and social atmosphere of the street by orienting new homes towards the street with attractive front porches, highly visible street facades, and compatible setbacks. • Maintain, improve and/or develop parkways with canopy street trees, providing shade, beauty and a unifying identity to residential streets. • Encourage well-designed, front yards to provide an effective visual transition from the street to the homes. • Where feasible, encourage the actual or visual narrowing of streets through measures such as widened parkways, canopy trees, and sidewalk bulbs at the intersections. • Site garages back from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and vehicular access. Staff does not support the project as designed due to the issues mentioned above. These issues include: an inadequate private street design that does not provide a safe and attractive environment for the circulation of vehicles and pedestrians; inadequate front and side yard landscaped setbacks to separate the three story homes from the street pavement and adjacent residences; inadequate driveway depths adjacent to the private street; and , the incompatibility of the three story residence with a roof deck on Lot 19 where located in close proximity to adjacent single family homes. Public Outreach: The applicant attended a West Anaheim community meeting on August 13, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. According to the applicant, the residents expressed comments related to the overall density, size and type of residential units, lack of sidewalks and driveways, length of the private street and potential vehicular speeding, and the roof decks. Staff also received three letters of opposition from the adjacent neighbors to the west. The residents expressed concerns regarding the lack of on-site parking, open space/playgrounds, front yards, sidewalks, and parkways. The letters are included as Attachment No. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754, AND APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION August 25, 2014 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to the October 6, 2014 meeting to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address the site design issues as described above and allow staff to correctly advertise the redesigned project. Prepared by, Submitted by, David See Ted White Senior Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Applicant’s Letter Requesting Private Street Waiver 4. City Engineer’s Denial Letter 5. City’s Private Street Standard 6. Parking Study and Consultant’s Peer Review 7. Project Summary 8. Neighbor’s Letters of Opposition The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at www.anaheim.net/planning. 9. Photos 10. Plans C-G (BCC)(RO)MOTE L 6 C-G (BCC )PAR KING L O T RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RE SID EN CE RM -4APTS10 D U RM -4COLCHESTE RAPARTMENTS5 DU T (BC C)S.F.R . C-G (BCC )RETAIL RM -4APTS5 DU RM -4APTS5 DU C-G (BCC )AUTO REPAIR /SE RVICE C-G (BCC )RES TAU RA NT RS-3S.F.R . RM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 D U RS-2S.F.R . RM-4COLCHESTE RAPARTMENTS16 D U RM -4APTS5 DU RM-4S.F.R . C-G (BCC )MEDI CA L O FFICE C-G (BCC )OFFI CE S RM -4APTS8 DU RM -4FOURPLE X C-G (BCC )OFFI CE S C-G (BCC )RETAIL C-G (BCC)(RO)BRO O KH URSTPLAZA INN C-G (BCC)(RO)RETAIL C-G (BCC )(R O )RETAIL C-G (BCC )(R O )BAN K RM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 D U C-G (BCC )RETAIL RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . RS-2S.F.R . C-G (BCC)(RO)VACANT C-G (BCC)(RO)PO LYNE SIA NMOTEL RM -4FOURPLE X C-G (BCC)(RO)OFFI CE S C-G (BBC )(RO )OFFICE S Re side ntial O pp or tun ity (RO)Overlay Zone Re side ntial O pp or tun ity (RO)Overlay Zone Brookhurst CommercialCorridor (BCC)Overlay ZoneBrookhurst CommercialCorridor (B CC )Overlay Zone S BROOKHURST STW O R A N GE AV E W S TON Y B ROO K DRS COLONY STW N I OBE AV E S CAMPUS DRW C LEA RB ROO K LN S MARBEYA PLS MILLS ENDW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVE N. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE 641 -70 1 So uth Br oo kh urs t Str e et D E V 20 14 -0 00 1 8 Su bje ct Property APN: 127-231-35127-241-67127-241-70 ATTACHM ENT NO. 1 0 50 10 0 Feet Ae ria l Pho to :Ma y 20 12CITY OF ANAHEIMUNINCORPORATEDCITY OF ANAHEIMUNINCORPORATED S BROOKHURST STW O R AN GE AV E W STON Y BRO OK D RS COLONY STW NI OBE AV E S CAMPUS DRW CL EARB ROOK LN S MARBEYA PLS MILLS ENDW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVE S. BROOKHURST STS.GILBERTSTW. LINCOLN AVE 641 -7 0 1 S o ut h B roo k hu r st S t r e et D E V2 014 -0 0 01 8 Subject Property APN: 127-231-35127-241-6 7127-241-7 0 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P hoto :Ma y 2012CITY OF ANAHEIMUNINCORPORATEDCITY OF ANAHEIMUNINCORPORATED ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2400 E. Katella Avenue • Suite 800 • Anaheim, CA 92806 www.development-advisors.com May 15, 2014 Mark Vukojevic City Engineer Anaheim Public Works Department 200 S Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Subject: Request for Exemption from Engineering Standard Detail No. 162 pertaining to private streets Dear Mr. Vukojevic: This letter serves as a formal request for a discretionary exemption from Engineering Standard Detail No. 162 pertaining to private streets. Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Section 18.40.060.080 allows application to the City Engineer for modification to the private street standard. Should the City Engineer not grant the request, application for modification can be made to the Planning Commission. MBK Homes is proposing a for-sale infill residential project on 2.5 acres at 641 South Brookhurst Street. The new neighborhood will consist of 44 detached townhomes, ornamental landscaping, and an internal access drive constructed with enhanced paving. The City’s General Plan designates the site for Residential (Low-Medium), allowing up to 18 dwelling units per acre. MBK is proposing a new residential concept that allows a townhome to live like a detached home by “pulling apart” the common wall and providing desirable private rear yard spaces for homeowners to enjoy. Internal circulation is provided by a 24-foot wide drive aisle with decorative interlocking pavers. The design is intended to be a residential enclave where cars move slowly from Brookhurst Street into their respective garages or guest parking spaces (all units will have direct garage access). The design reflects a multi-family townhome community and not a single-family neighborhood with wide private streets, parkways, and sidewalks intended for higher speeds and through traffic. Please refer to the attached site plan for reference. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Engineering Standard Detail No. 162 was created in 2004 to address private access requirements for residential projects. The standard requires a pavement width of 20 feet for projects of four units or less. Although the standard does not state this explicitly, it’s assumed that a pavement width of 28 feet, 4 foot sidewalk and a 6 foot parkway is required for a total width of 48 feet for projects that have more than four units. The standard is illustrated below: AMC Section 18.40.060.80.0801 provides that before any such exemption is granted by the City Engineer, it shall be shown that either: .01 There is no reasonable relationship between the need for the required dedication and improvements and the type of development project on which such requirements are imposed; or .02 The cost of the required dedication and improvements unreasonably exceeds the burden or impact created by the development project. Following is the justification that demonstrates that there is no reasonable relationship between the need for the improvement and the type of development project on which such requirements are proposed:  Trash Truck Access – The drive aisles as designed provide adequate street width, turning radii, and the required turnaround area for trash truck access. This has been confirmed by Republic Services.  Pedestrian Access – Residents of the development will have direct garage access to their townhomes in addition to pathways leading to the main entries of each unit.  Aisle Width – The proposed 24-foot wide access drive provides ample width for two vehicles to circulate through the development without introducing conflict points. This aisle width has been accepted by Public Works on past projects where the site plan integrates a paseo for pedestrian access. We achieve the same pedestrian access objective with direct unit access from the garages as well as integrating the main entries on the side of each home. The site plan efficiently uses the remaining site area that would otherwise be wasted on more sidewalks and parkways for private yards to be enjoyed by the residents.  Precedence – Recently approved projects have utilized a 24-foot wide drive aisle to provide two- way access and adequate vehicle back up depth to access garages. The difference between those projects and our site plan is that they use their open space to create “paseos” to gain access to each unit. Based on MBK’s experience as homebuilders, their homebuyers prefer useable backyards instead of a landscaped walkway or “paseo.” We believe this makes the project more livable because the homeowner can use this space to barbeque, recreate with their children, or simply relax outdoors. The paseos would only be used to walk to and from the unit. Our site plan provides same access as a paseo, but on the sides of the homes and through the garages, where most residents enter their homes. Examples of recently approved projects showing a 24-foot wide drive aisle and paseos in front of the units are attached for your reference. MBK Homes respectfully requests approval of this request for a discretionary exemption from Engineering Standard Detail No. 162 pertaining to private streets. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (714) 606-7208 or greg@development-advisors.com. Sincerely, Greg McCafferty, Principal Development Advisors, LLC Attachments: Project Site Plan, Recent Examples of Approved Projects Recent Examples of Approved Projects Lennar: 1531-1627 E. Lincoln Ave. Approved January 13, 2014 Watt Communities: 801-817 S. Anaheim Blvd. and 120 W. South St. Approved December 2, 2013 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6   1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 Orange, California 92868(714) 973-8383 www.traffic-engineer.com July 22, 2014        Mr. David See, Senior Planner  CITY OF ANAHEIM  200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162  Anaheim, CA 92805    Dear Mr. See:    INTRODUCTION    The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide this technical memorandum peer review of  the 641 South Brookhurst Street (MBK Homes) project in the City of Anaheim.  The Residential Open  Parking Space Demand Analysis for 641 S. Brookhurst Street (MBK Homes) was prepared by Arch Beach  Consulting (June 9, 2014).  The project site is located on the west side of Brookhurst Street between  Orange Avenue and Niobe Avenue.    CITY OF ANAHEIM PARKING REQUIREMENTS    The City of Anaheim parking requirements for single‐family detached residential dwelling units (six or  fewer bedrooms) is 4 parking spaces (2 in a garage) per dwelling unit (or 4.00 parking spaces per  dwelling unit.    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    The applicant is requesting the development of 44 single‐family detached residential dwelling units  (with 19 two‐bedroom units and 25 three‐bedroom units) on a 2.5 acre lot.  The density would be 17.6  dwelling units/acre.  The proposed project would provide 88 covered garage spaces (i.e., two parking  spaces in each garage) and 39 open parking spaces for a total of 127 parking spaces.  Due to the density  of the project, there would be no driveways provided for each dwelling unit.  The proposed  development provides 2.89 parking spaces per dwelling unit.    The City would require 176 parking spaces (88 parking spaces in garages and 88 open parking spaces)  based upon their parking requirements shown above.    SIMILAR PROJECT    Kunzman Associates, Inc. was provided with the location of a similar single‐family detached residential  dwelling unit project by the City of Anaheim staff.  The similar project (Peppertree Walk) is located at    Mr. David CITY OF A July 22, 20     the north consists o lot.  The  provided  This calcu   CITY OF A   Kunzman  2014) and counts are   Day of Thur Satu Aver   CONCLUS   Based up for 641 S the City o Homes) is   It has bee be of furt   Respectfu   KUNZMAN         Carl Balla Principal A   #5802    d See, Senior P ANAHEIM  014  hwest corner of 68 single‐fa density is 1 in garages a ulates to a tot ANAHEIM PAR Associates, I d a typical w e shown belo     f Week  rsday   1 rday 1 rage  SION  on the parkin . Brookhurst  of Anaheim p s projected to en a pleasure  her assistanc ully submitted N ASSOCIATE rd, LEED GA  Associate  Planner  r of the Mul amily detache 2.0 dwelling  nd 68 open s tal of 3 parkin RKING SURVE nc. personne weekend (Satu ow:      Timeframe 6:00 AM  12:00 Midnig 6:00 AM  12:00 Midnig   ng surveys ob Street (MBK  arking survey o provide ade to service yo e, please do n d,  S, INC.         www.tra ler Street/Lin ed residentia units/acre.  spaces for gu ng spaces (2 c EY  l conducted p urday, June 2  Outs 3 ght 2 2 ght 2 2 btained from Homes) was y conducted b quate parkin our needs on  not hesitate t affic-engineer 2  ncoln Avenue l dwelling un  The existing uest parking  overed) per d parking surve 29, 2014) at  Number of Pa side Gar 1 1 9 1 8 1 8 1 9 1  the   Reside s prepared by by Kunzman A g at 2.89 park this project.   to call at (714       .com e intersectio its (all three‐ g project site for a total of dwelling unit. eys on a typic 6:00 AM and arked Vehicle rages T 36 1 36 1 36 1 36 1 36 1 ential Open P y Arch Beach Associates, In king spaces p Should you h 4) 973‐8383. KUNZMA William K Principal n in the City bedroom uni e contains 13 f 204 parking .  al weekday (T d 12:00 Midn es Nu Dw  Total  167  165  164  164  165  Parking Space  Consulting ( nc., the propo er dwelling u have any que AN ASSOCIATE Kunzman, P.E y of Anaheim its) on a  5.67 36 parking s g spaces prov Thursday, Jun night.  The pa mber of  welling  Units  Pa R 68 2 68 2 68 2 68 2 68 2 e Demand An (June 9, 2014 osed project  unit.  estions or if w ES, INC.  .  m.  It  7 acre  paces  vided.   ne 17,  arking  arking Ratio  2.46  2.43  2.41  2.41  2.43  nalysis  4) and  (MBK  we can  arch beach CONSULTING arch beach CONSULTING 1155 Camino Del Mar, #125 Del Mar, CA 92014 (858) 925-6190 office phone/fax (949) 637-9007 mobile phone www.archbeachconsulting.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Kye Evans, MBK Homes Josh Haskins, Environmental Advisors FROM: Dennis M. Pascua Principal Transportation Planner DATE: June 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Residential Open Parking Space Demand Analysis for 641 S. Brookhurst Street (MBK Homes) in the City of Anaheim The following Technical Memorandum presents the results of a parking demand survey of the “open” parking spaces of two existing “detached condominium” (i.e., high density, detached residential dwelling units – DUs) developments in Southern California (an 18 DU subdivision in Gardena, and a 25 DU subdivision in Riverside). “Open” parking spaces are non-garaged parking spaces available for residents and guests of a subdivision. In addition, this Tech Memo provides a comparison of Municipal Code parking requirements for single-family homes in the City of Anaheim, and other adjacent cities. This Tech Memo has been prepared to support the proposed “open” space parking supply provided for the MBK Homes project located at 641 S. Brookhurst Street (proposed project) in the City of Anaheim (City). The project site is on the west side of Brookhurst Street, between Orange Avenue and Niobe Avenue. MBK Homes is proposing the development of 44 detached homes (with 19 two- bedroom units, and 25 three-bedroom units) on a 2.5 acre lot. The density would be 17.6 DU/acre, similar to the densities of attached condominium developments. The proposed project would provide 88 covered garage spaces (i.e., two spaces in each garage) and 39 open spaces for a total of 127 parking spaces. Due to the density of the project, there would be no driveways provided for each DU. The project site plan is attached. City of Anaheim Parking Requirements Per the City of Anaheim (Quick Reference) Parking Requirements (2008), the parking requirements for single-family homes (six or fewer bedrooms) is 4 spaces (2 in a garage) per DU (or 4.00 spaces per DU). Therefore, the City would require 176 spaces (88 spaces in garages and 88 open spaces, presumably on driveways). The proposed project would comply with the garage spaces, however, it would be 50 spaces short of the non-garaged, or open, spaces. Using the City’s Multiple Family DU rates of 2.25 spaces per DU for 2 bedroom DUs, and 3.0 spaces for 3 bedroom DUs, the requirement would be 117.75 spaces (42.75 spaces for 2- bedroom units + 75 spaces for 3-bedroom units), rounded to 118 spaces (or 2.68 spaces per DU). Using the City’s Multiple Family DUs rates, the proposed project would have a residual of 9 spaces (assuming 88 spaces in garages and 30 open spaces). Technical Memorandum – Open Space Parking Demand Analysis, MBK Homes Anaheim June 19, 2014 Page 2 of 5 While the proposed project contains 44 detached single-family homes, it would be constructed at a higher density comparable to multiple-family homes at 17.6 DU/acre. While the proposed project would provide two spaces in each DU’s garage, a parking survey was conducted at two similar existing residential developments to determine their actual demand of open spaces to arrive at an appropriate parking rate for the open spaces of the proposed project. Open Space Parking Surveys Per discussions with other home builders, two existing detached condominium developments in Gardena and Riverside were found with very similar characteristics to the proposed project: 1. Detached condominiums of two- to three bedrooms 2. Two-car garages with no driveways (for all units) 3. Segregated (walled) residential development with no gated access 4. Higher densities (than typical single-family home developments) of 13 – 15 DU/acre 5. Open (resident and guest) parking The open parking spaces at these two sites were surveyed on a typical Saturday (May 31, 2014) and a typical weekday (Thursday, June 5, 2014) from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, and the survey results are presented below. The raw parking survey data are attached to this Tech Memo. In addition, below are aerial photographs and brief descriptions of each surveyed site: Gardena Site Site Characteristics and Location: 18 detached condo DUs (@ 15.13 DU/acre) near northwest corner of Budlong Avenue/138th Street in the City of Gardena. Technical Memorandum – Open Space Parking Demand Analysis, MBK Homes Anaheim June 19, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Gardena Site (Budlong Avenue) Open Parking Space Survey Results  18 DUs with 9 open spaces (36 spaces in garages)  Thursday: 12 space peak demand occurred at 6AM, 6PM, and 10PM to midnight (all 9 spaces and 3 illegally parked cars) o Open space parking demand = 0.67 spaces per DU o Total observed parking demand, including two spaces in each garage = 48 spaces (36 garage spaces + 12 open spaces) OR 2.67 spaces per DU  Saturday: 11 space peak demand occurred at 6AM, 11PM, and midnight (all 9 spaces and 2 illegally parked cars) o Open space parking demand = 0.61 spaces per DU o Total observed parking demand, including two spaces in each garage = 47 spaces (36 garage spaces + 11 open spaces) OR 2.61 spaces per DU Riverside Site Site Characteristics and Location: 25 detached condo DUs (@ 12.63 DU/acre) at Magnolia Avenue/Porch Street in the City of Riverside. Technical Memorandum – Open Space Parking Demand Analysis, MBK Homes Anaheim June 19, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Riverside Site (Porch Street) Open Space Parking Survey Results  25 DUs with 21 open spaces  Thursday: 14 space peak demand occurred from 11PM to midnight o Open space parking demand = 0.56 spaces per DU o Total observed parking demand, including two spaces in each garage = 64 spaces (50 garage spaces + 14 open spaces) OR 2.56 spaces per DU  Saturday: 14 space demand occurred at 6AM and midnight o Open space parking demand = 0.56 spaces per DU o Total observed parking demand, including two spaces in each garage = 64 spaces (50 garage spaces + 14 open spaces) OR 2.56 spaces per DU HIGHEST DEMAND of open parking spaces = Thursday at Gardena Site at 0.67 spaces per DU OR 2.67 spaces per DU for total parking spaces (garage and open spaces) AVERAGE DEMAND (all four days at both sites) of open parking spaces = 0.60 spaces per DU OR 2.60 spaces per DU for total parking spaces (garage and open spaces) MBK Anaheim Site (proposed project) Site characteristics: 44 DUs with 39 open spaces, and 88 spaces in two-car garages, for a total of 127 spaces. Using the results of the parking survey data above:  Per highest open space parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 29 spaces OR a total of 117 spaces (at 2.67 spaces per DU)  Per average open parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 26 spaces OR a total of 114 spaces (at 2.60 spaces per DU)  Using highest demand results in a residual of 10 open spaces (39 spaces – 29 spaces)  Using average demand results in a residual of 13 open spaces (39 spaces – 26 spaces) Therefore, based on the parking surveys of the open spaces at two existing similar (detached, high-density) residential developments in Southern California, the proposed project would be adequately parked at 2.89 spaces per DU (two spaces per garage and 0.89 open spaces per DU). Per highest open space parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 29 spaces OR a total of 117 spaces (at 2.67 spaces per DU). Per average open space parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 26 spaces OR a total of 114 spaces (at 2.60 spaces per DU). Comparison of Traditional Low-Density Single-Family Parking Rates of Adjacent Cities As discussed above, per the City’s Parking Requirements (2008), the parking requirements for single-family homes (six or fewer bedrooms) is 4 spaces (2 in a garage) per DU (or 4.0 spaces per DU). Over six bedrooms, an additional space per bedroom is required. Below is a list of single- family home parking requirements, relative to the proposed project, for adjacent cities: Brea: Two covered parking dwelling spaces for each unit, plus 0.5 uncovered parking spaces for each dwelling unit. Costa Mesa: Two garage parking spaces, and two open spaces for lots without garage access from alley, or one open parking space for lots with garage access from alley. In common-interest developments, required open parking may be provided on an individual unit’s driveway or within the common area. Technical Memorandum – Open Space Parking Demand Analysis, MBK Homes Anaheim June 19, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Fullerton: Two car garage Huntington Beach: Two enclosed (spaces) and two open per unit. Irvine: Two covered spaces per unit. If on-street parking is not permitted or is restricted on the unit’s street frontage then one visitor parking space shall be required for each affected unit. Orange: Two enclosed garage spaces per unit accessed by a 12 foot wide by 20 foot long driveway. Santa Ana: 4 off-street parking spaces, 2 of which are in an enclosed garage. The remaining spaces may be tandem spaces in a driveway. When compared to other adjacent cities, the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Orange, and Santa Ana have similar requirements as Anaheim at four spaces per DU, while the other cities (Brea, Costa Mesa, and Fullerton) have lesser parking requirements. Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the parking surveys of the open spaces at two existing similar (detached, high-density) residential developments in Southern California, the proposed project would be adequately parked at 2.89 spaces per DU (two spaces per garage and 0.89 open spaces per DU). Per highest open space parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 29 spaces OR a total of 117 spaces (at 2.67 spaces per DU). Per average open space parking demand above, peak open space demand would be 26 spaces OR a total of 114 spaces (at 2.60 spaces per DU). Therefore, the proposed project (detached condominium – high density residential) is forecast to be parked more in-line with the City’s Multiple Family DU parking rate, and it is recommended that this would be the appropriate parking rate for the proposed project (2.68 spaces per DU in aggregate). Using this rate, the required parking supply would be 118 spaces. The proposed project would provide 127 spaces, leaving a residual supply of 9 open parking spaces. Attachment: Project Site Plan Parking survey raw data 16'-0"123451312111098763738394041422728293031363534333219202122232425261516171828'-1"14434413'-4" 15'-0"16'-5"15'-4"17'-2"2 STORY2 STORY2 STORY2 STORY2 STORYP-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-7 P-9P-11 P-36 P-37 P-38 P-39 P-32 P-33 P-34 P-24 P-25 P-31 P-29 P-28 P-27 P-26 17'-9"2B2B2B2B2A2A2A2A2B2B333331B2B1B1B2B1B1B2B1B1A1A1A1A1B2B1B1B2B1B17'-7"P-21P-17 24'-0"24'-0"24'-0" 24'-0"17'-7"60'-0"BROOKHURSTP-22R17'-6"28'-2"15'-1" 12'-8" 14'-11" P-35P-23P-12P-10 P-8 6'-2" 5'-11" P-6 13'-0" 15'-1"13'-7" 2'-0"R17'-6"R1 7 ' - 6 " R 1 7 ' - 6 "R45'-0"R 4 5 ' - 0 "R45' -0 "1A1A1A2A2A2A1A1A2A2A14'-3" 13'-0"16'-8"20'-0"10'-3"10'-3"8'-5"10'-0"8'-5"8'-3"10'-5"8'-3"10'-4"7'-0"10'-3"7'-0"8'-1"7'-9"10'-3"10'-3"10'-5"8'-3"N7'-5"10'-4"7'-10"10'-4"15'-1"13'-1"15'-1"13'-7" 15'-0" 13'-6" 15'-0" 13'-0" 15'-0" 13'-6" 14'-11" 13'-5" 15'-0" 13'-0" 15'-0" 13'-6" 15'-0"7'-4"10'-3"7'-10"10'-4"8'-2"10'-4"7'-4"10'-5"8'-2"10'-3"7'-3"10'-4"15'-0" 13'-0"10'-3"7'-3"10'-0"7'-8"10'-3"8'-9"10'-0"8'-6"10'-0"7'-8"13'-7" 13'-2" 13'-8" 13'-3" 12'-10" 13'-10" 15'-4" 15'-4" 15'-3" 15'-2" 15'-2" 14'-8" 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0"12'-4"6'-6"6'-0"6'-3"6'-3"11122233333444556667771212121111111110101099988P-20P-19P-18P-13P-14P-16P-15P-30 28'-0" 14'-8" 15'-0" 13'-0"FHFHSITE PLAN NOTES1. FIRE LANE2. DECORATIVE INTERLOCKING PAVERS3. 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL - TAN COLOR4. 2 CAR GARAGE WITH 16' WIDE DOOR5. 3 STORY DWELLING, TYP.6. CONDUCT SITE DRAINAGE TO APPROVED DRAINAGE OUTLET7. EXISTING SIDEWALK8. 9 X 18 GUEST PARKING STALL 8 X 22 PARALLEL PARKING STALL9. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (P.Y.)10. LINE OF 2ND FLOOR ABOVE11. PRIVACY FENCE12. CONCRETE WALKWAYSITE SUMMARY:SITE AREA:108,306 S.F.BLDG FOOTPRINTS: 32,889 S.F. (30.3%)DRIVEWAY: 28,900 S.F. (26.7%)OPEN GUEST STALLS: 6,156 S.F. (5.7%)OPEN SPACE: 40,361 S.F. (37.3%)BALCONY 2,583 S.F.ROOF DECK 9,880 S.F.PLAN SUMMARY:PLAN 1 2 BD+DEN 19 UNITS TOTALTOTAL LIVABLE AREA 1,622 S.F.GARAGE 420 S.F.BALCONY 65 S.F.ROOF DECK 280 S.F.PLAN 2 3 BD+DEN20 UNITS TOTALTOTAL LIVABLE AREA 1,746 S.F.GARAGE 420 S.F.BALCONY 68 S.F.ROOF DECK 215 S.F.PLAN 3 3 BD+DEN 5 UNITS TOTALTOTAL LIVABLE AREA 1,683 S.F.GARAGE 420 S.F.PARKING SUMMARY:PROVIDED:COVERED GARAGE STALLS =88 STALLSOPEN PARKING STALLS = 39 STALLSTOTAL STALLS PROVIDED 127 STALLSREQUIRED:19 - 2 BDRM UNITS @ 2.25 STALLS/UNIT = 43 STALLS25 - 3 BDRM UNITS @ 3.0 STALLS/UNIT = 75 STALLSINCL. GUEST STALLS @ 0.25 STALLS/UNITTOTAL REQUIRED PARKING = 118 STALLSPROJECT SUMMARYSITE ADDRESS: 641 S. BROOKHURST STREETZONING:GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G)OVERLAY:BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (BCC)EXISTING LAND USE HOTEL/MOTELREDEVELOPMENT AREA WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORSPROPOSED UNITS: 44 DETACHED HOMESSITE AREA 2.5 ACRESDENSITY17.6 DU/ACREBUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES (35'-6" OVERALL)SITEBROOKHURSTSTONYBROOK ORANGEROSEBAYNIOBECLEARBROOK 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003CA LIC# C20666 www.summarch.com 760.724.1198ARCHITECTUREMBK HOMES4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000IRVINE, CA 926140 10 20 601SITE PLAN Date:6/5/2014 Day:Thursday Location:Magnolia Ave & Por Location:Budlong Ave & 138th St City:Riverside City: Gardena Spaces 21 Spaces 9 9 6:00 12 6:00 9312 7:00 11 7:00 639 8:00 8 8:00 538 9:00 6 9:00 538 10:00 5 10:00 426 11:00 5 11:00 448 12:00 7 12:00 437 13:00 8 13:00 325 14:00 6 14:00 314 15:00 6 15:00 415 16:00 6 16:00 639 17:00 8 17:00 6410 18:00 11 18:00 8412 19:00 9 19:00 8210 20:00 11 20:00 8210 21:00 12 21:00 9211 22:00 12 22:00 9312 23:00 14 23:00 9312 0:00 14 0:00 9312 TOTAL 171 TOTAL 119 51 170 Prepared by National Data and Surveying Services Time Regular Time Guest Illegal TOTALS Parking Study Date:5/31/2014 Day:Saturday Location:Magnolia Ave & Porch St Location:Budlong Ave & 138th St City:Riverside City: Gardena Spaces 21 Spaces 9 9 6:00 14 6:00 9211 7:00 12 7:00 8210 8:00 12 8:00 729 9:00 10 9:00 628 10:00 8 10:00 527 11:00 10 11:00 516 12:00 12 12:00 516 13:00 10 13:00 415 14:00 8 14:00 314 15:00 9 15:00 213 16:00 9 16:00 213 17:00 9 17:00 303 18:00 10 18:00 415 19:00 12 19:00 527 20:00 11 20:00 516 21:00 11 21:00 617 22:00 14 22:00 718 23:00 13 23:00 9211 0:00 14 0:00 9211 TOTAL 208 TOTAL 104 26 130 Guest Illegal TOTALS Parking Study Prepared by National Data and Surveying Services Time Regular Time ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PROJECT SUMMARY Development Standard Proposed Project RS-4 Standards Site Area 2.5 acres --- Density 17.6 du/ac 18 du/ac max. Lot Area* 1,330 to 2,513 square feet Established by CUP Lot Width* 31 – 55 feet Established by CUP Floor Area* Two Bedrooms: 1,622 sq. ft. Three Bedrooms: 1,683 - 1,746 sq. ft. (both models include dens that could potentially be converted to bedrooms) 1,225 sq. ft. minimum Maximum Site Coverage* 39 to 54% 50% maximum Front Landscape Setback* 2 - 6 feet 10 feet minimum Side yard Setback* 2 – 5 feet Parking spaces are located in some side yards 5 feet minimum Rear yard setback* 5 - 15 feet 15 feet minimum Building Height** Five 2-story homes 39 three-story homes with roof decks 30 feet or 2 stories Parking 4 on-site parking spaces per unit (2 garage spaces and 2 spaces in front of garage) 3 on-site parking spaces per unit (2 garage spaces per unit and 39 open spaces) * May be established or modified by CUP ** The Zoning Code currently does not allow three-story residences in the RS-4 zone. A City-initiated Code Amendment to conditionally permit three story residences in this zone is on the agenda as Item No. 6. From:theballlady@aol.com To:David See Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 7:51:09 AM I am worried about the new development on Brookhurst and Orange. There are to many homes planed for this development, with out any places for cars. I feel that the developer is putting as many home in there to make the most money and not thinking about how this will effect the community and the people that will live there. There is not place or parking and not even enough room for parking for those who will be living there. 44 homes are to many in the development. There needs to be less homes on this property so the home owners and guest have a place to park. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 From:Victor Real To:David See Cc:Esther Wallace Subject:Polynesian Motel Development Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 6:30:00 AM Importance:High Dear Dave, WAND and the residents of the West District in Anaheim have worked for many years to mitigate the blighted problems with over population in our area, yet the City Planning Department continues to help developers to presents plans for housing in complete 180 degrees to what we as home owners have as a common interest. Consider that in twenty years from now this development will be blighted same as we have experienced in the West of the City due to the approval of apartments and motels and multi dwelling properties. The residents of West Anaheim are concerned about the three story single family homes to replace the Polynesian Motel on Brookhurst Street just south of Orange Avenue. For the following reasons; 1. In their plan, there are 18 homes to an acre - there will be 44 houses in all. 2. They do not have streets, the driveways are 24 ft. wide directly in front of the garages and no sidewalks. 3. There are only three parking spaces for each home (two in the garage and one between houses) and no parking for visitors. 4. There is no playground for the little children. 5. The developer is building these under the guise of multiple housing such as condos or attached townhouses. 6. Single family homes with three bedrooms require four parking spaces. Quite a few homes have 14 ft. between them in the backyard (which are seven ft. back yards). 7. There are five 2-story homes (1600 sq.ft.) and 39 2-story homes (1700 sq.ft.) They will sell in the high $400,000 to low $500,000. Please present this letter of opposition to the City Planning Commission during the hearing on Monday 8-25-2014. Thank you for your consideration. Vic Real Member WAND Board of Directors Former Chairman West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council/CDBG/CDAC 723 N Cambria St Anaheim CA 92801 714/305-5113 (cell) From:ciao, Annie To:David See Subject:Housing on Brookhurst south of Orange Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 10:22:45 PM I live on Clearbrook Lane which backs up to this proposed project.This is such a high density project containing no street parking which will certainlyplace a burden on the adjacent businesses plus the fact that there is no otherhousing or a park on this commercial section of Brookhurst I was appalled that there is no place for children to play in this proposal. Are theyto ride their bikes on Brookhurst? Play tag out there? Face all kinds of danger out there? Wjere is tje quality of life? Please rethink this poorly planned, money grabbing proposal. This will do nothing to improve West Anaheim. Hope to see you at Monday's meeting. Ann Beck Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LE SMARTPHONE Ciao, Annie ATTACHMENT NO. 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 200 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.