PC 2014/11/17
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, November 17, 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,
November 13, 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
11/17/14
Page 2 of 9
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.
11/17/14
Page 3 of 9
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00113
(DEV2014-00105)
Location: 401 North East Street
Request: For a determination of public convenience or
necessity to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-
site consumption in conjunction with a 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
ITEM NO. 3
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00112
(DEV2014-00117)
Location: 1084-1086 North State College Boulevard
Request: For 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 (Buy Low 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
11/17/14
Page 4 of 9
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05762
(DEV2014-00099)
Location: 2021 East Via Burton Street
Request: To permit a physical fitness facility within an
existing industrial building.
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
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2012-148
(DEV2011-00110A)
Location: 200-282 North Lemon Street,
107-127 West Lincoln Avenue,
and 120 West Cypress Street
Request: To approve a tentative parcel map to
consolidate six parcels into one parcel.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will determine if a previously-approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental
determination for this project.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
11/17/14
Page 5 of 9
ITEM NO. 6
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-172
(DEV2014-00088)
Location: 2300 South Lewis Street
Request: To establish a 2-lot subdivision of an existing
mobile home and recreational vehicle park for future
development of the recreational vehicle park portion of the
property. Existing mobile homes on the property would not
be impacted.
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.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
vnorwood@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754
(DEV2014-00083)
Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard
Request: To permit a tour bus company with on-site
office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storage on a
property developed with a dinner theater and restaurant.
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:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
ethien@anaheim.net
11/17/14
Page 6 of 9
ITEM NO. 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05766
(DEV2014-00104)
Location: 505 North Euclid Street
Request: To permit a charter high school within an
existing office building.
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:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
ethien@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 9
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 40-unit attached
and detached single family residential project with
modifications to development standards; a variance for
a deviation from the City’s private street standard
pertaining to required parkway and sidewalk widths;
and a tentative tract map to permit a 40-unit single
family residential subdivision.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether Environmental Impact Report No.
330 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No.
2012-00346 (Previously-Certified) is the appropriate
environmental documentation per California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Continued from the August 25, 2014 and October 6, 2014
Planning Commission meetings.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
11/17/14
Page 7 of 9
ITEM NO. 10
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04982
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
(DEV2014-00046)
Location: 701 East Cypress Street
Request: To permit the following zoning entitlements:
a reclassification to rezone the property from the RS-3
(Single Family Residential) and I (Industrial) zones to
the RS-4 (Single Family Residential) zone; a
conditional use permit to construct a 38-unit small lot,
detached single family residential project with
modifications to development standards; a variance for
(i) driveway lengths less than permitted by Code, (ii) a
deviation from the City’s private street standard
pertaining to sidewalk and parkway widths, and (iii) a
wall height that exceeds Code requirements; and a
tentative tract map to permit a 38-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 (Streamlining for In-Fill Development
Projects) Categorical Exemption).
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
11/17/14
Page 8 of 9
ITEM NO. 11
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00120
(DEV2014-00119)
Location: Citywide
Request: A City-initiated amendment to Title 18
(Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to increase the
permitted height of detached single-family residences
from 2-stories to 3-stories in the RS-4 (Single Family
Residential) and “RM” (Multiple Family Residential)
Zones.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental
documentation under Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations on the basis that there is no
possibility that the Zoning Code amendment may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Motion
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, December 15, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
(The scheduled meeting of December 1, 2014 has been cancelled
due to a lack of agenda items.)
11/17/14
Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
3:00 p.m. November 13, 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: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00113
LOCATION: 401 North East Street (Northgate Market)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Miguel Gonzales with
Northgate Market. The agent representing the applicant is Adam Wood with Curt
Pringle & Associates and the property owner is Ber Mac Buildings, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in
conjunction with a grocery store.
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 (Class
1, Existing Facilities), and approving Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-
00113.
BACKGROUND: This 1.8-acre property is developed with a commercial retail
center that includes a 16,615 square foot vacant grocery store formerly occupied by
Jax Market. The property is in the C-G (General Commercial) zone. The General
Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses. The property is
surrounded by apartments to the west and south, single-family residences and a
carwash to the north across Sycamore Street, and an automotive repair shop and
single-family residences to the east across East Street.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval for an Off-Sale General (Type 21)
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for the Northgate Market grocery store.
Alcoholic beverage sales would represent 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. The hours of operation would be from 7 a.m. to
10 p.m., daily.
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. 2014-00113
November 17, 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 this zone. However, a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is
required in this instance because the area 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. 873, which has a population of 10,413. Six off-sale
licenses are permitted based on this population, and currently there are five licenses in the tract. Jax
Market closed in August, 2013 and its Off-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 20) license was transferred from
the property to a location outside of the City in March, 2014. Therefore, this request would increase the
number of off-sale licenses within this census tract from five to six.
The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1526, which has a crime rate that is 113% above
the citywide average. There have been 17 calls for service to this location in the past year in response
to one petty theft, one suspicious subject, three burglar alarms, one drunk driver, one medical aid, three
disturbances, one report of vandalism and one found property. The crime rate within one-quarter mile
of this property is 202% above the citywide average based upon calls for service. These calls consisted
of 40 drug abuse violations, 28 simple assaults, 22 vandalisms, and 17 grand theft automobile reports.
These calls for service were generated primarily from the nearby residential neighborhood during the
period of time that the market was closed.
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 would implement several measures to
deter crime and further ensure that alcohol will not create a nuisance for the surrounding area. These
measures include maintaining a well-lit parking lot and state of the art cash registers that automatically
require proper identification when alcoholic beverages are purchased. Liquor would be displayed in a
closed and locked cabinet and managers would deliver these products at the customer’s request. The
store has one security guard on-site during business hours to monitor the alcohol cabinet and parking
lot.
Staff believes that with recommended conditions of approval relating to security measures and the
prohibition of exterior displays of alcohol, the sale of alcoholic beverages would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00113
November 17, 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 would
provide a convenience to Northgate Market patrons. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Vazquez Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning Group Planning Services Manager
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 Plan
6. Floor Plan
7. Photographs
C -GRETA ILRS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERM-4CYPRESS VILLASAPTS63 DU
C -G
A U T O R E P A IR
/S E R V IC E
R M -4
M E D IC A L
O F F IC ERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCER M -4APT S R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C ERM-4APARTMENTSR M -4APT S
RM-4TRIPLEX RM-4FOURPLEXC -GRETA IL
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C ERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCER S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
RM-4APARTMENTSRM-4APARTMENTSRM-4APARTMENTSN EAST STN BUSH STN ROSE STE S Y C A M O R E S T
E A D E L E S T
E F L O W E R S T
E G L E N W O O D A V E
N VI
NE STE C Y P R E S S S T
E C Y P R E S S S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
E . L IN C O L N A V EN.
HARBOR BLVDS.
EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y
W . B R O A D W A YW.L IN C O LNAV E N.STATECOLLEGEBLVDE.SOUTH STS.
ANAHEI
M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y
4 0 1 North East Street
D EV No. 2 0 14-00105
Subject Property APN: 035-224-20035-224-19
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
N EAST
STN BUSH
STN ROSE
ST
E SYCAMORE ST
E ADELE ST
E FLOWER ST
E GLENWOOD A
V
E
N V
INE
ST
E CYPRESS ST
E CYPRESS ST
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. LINCOLN
A
V
EN.
HARBOR BLVDS.
EAST
ST
E. BROADW
A
Y
W. BROADW
A
Y
W .L I N C O L N A V E N.STATECOLLEGEBLVDE.SOUTH STS.
ANAHE
IM
BLVD
E. BROADW
A
Y
401 North East Street
DEV No. 2014-00105
Subject Property
APN: 035-224-20
035-224-19
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
NO. 2014-00113 TO PERMIT A TYPE 21 (OFF SALE GENERAL) ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00105)
(401 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. 2014-00113 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 a
proposed grocery store commonly known as Northgate Market (herein referred to as the
"Proposed Project"), located at 450 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 1.8 acres, is developed with a
retail commercial center, including a 16,615 square foot space formerly used as a grocery store
and proposed for continued use as a grocery store by a new operator. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for General 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 November 17, 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. 2014-00113, 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
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. 2014-00113, does find and determine the following facts:
- 1 - PC2014-***
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.
5. The Property is located within Census Tract 873 with a population of 10,413 that
allows for six (6) off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently five (5) off-sale ABC licenses in the
tract. The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1526, which has a crime rate that
is 113% 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 202% above the City-wide average based upon calls
for service. Since the crime rate is above the City-wide average, a determination of "public
convenience or necessity" is required to be made for this request.
- 2 - PC2014-***
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 beer, wine and
distilled spirits at this location will be a small percentage of overall sales for this business and an
incidental commodity provided by the proposed 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. 2014-00113, 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.
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.
- 3 - PC2014-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00113
(DEV2014-00105)
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 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
3 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
4 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
5 Sale of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be made to customers only when the
customers are inside the building.
Police Department
6 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
7 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
8 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
9 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
10 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
- 6 - PC2014-***
11 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
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 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
16 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
17 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
- 7 - PC2014-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Justification for Public Convenience or Necessity
Northgate 401 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 two locations within the census tract that offer a Type 21 license. 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 save them the vehicle miles necessary to
find another location that does 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 within a residential area.
This application 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 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 five percent (5%) of all sales will be attributed to alcohol.
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 new Type 21 license. The prior owner/operator had a Type 20
license that ended on March 31, 2014 and was never transferred to Northgate. Northgate
subsequently entered the ABC lottery system and secured rights to a Type 21 license for
this location. Northgate seeks this PCN determination in order to move forward with
their Type 21 opportunity.
NORTHGATE MARKET # 40
Northgate Internal controls to prevent alcohol sales to minors are extremely important and start
at our point of sales (POS) system:
- Every time an alcohol product is scanned into the POS a warning comes up to alert the
cashier that they need to ask the customer for ID and enter the date of birth to verify that
the customer is over 21 years of age
- No matter how old the customer appears or looks our POS will require verification
- Our cashiers are trained at least once every year
- Our store doesn’t display liquor products on our shelves open to the public. The liquor is
displayed in a closed and locked cabinet at the front of the store visible to front end
managers, who will deliver a product at our customer’s request
Northgate market internal controls to prevent theft:
- Our company hired unarmed security guards that patrol our store to prevent shoplifting
- Our company guards patrol the exterior of the stores to make sure everything is under
control in our premises
- Our company guards call for police assistance in case something is happening at the
premises
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00112
LOCATION: 1084-1086 North State College Boulevard (Buy Low Market)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Ali Vazin with Buy Low
Market. The agent representing the property owner is Gerard O’Donnell with
Interpacific Asset Management and the property owner is Gloria Vickery.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in
conjunction with a grocery store.
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 (Class 1,
Existing Facilities), and approving Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00112.
BACKGROUND: This 9.3-acre property is developed with a commercial retail
center that includes a 24,443 square foot Buy Low Market. 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 apartments and a
restaurant to the north, apartments to the east, retail uses and apartments to the south
across La Palma Avenue and retail uses to the west across State College Boulevard.
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 Buy Low Market grocery store. Alcoholic
beverage sales would represent a small percentage of the overall retail sales activity of
the store. Less than ten percent of the floor area would be allocated for alcoholic
beverage display purposes. The market is open daily from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the
exception of Wednesday when the hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
ANALYSIS: The sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores over 10,000 square
feet in size is permitted by right in this 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.
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. 2014-00112
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
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. 864.02, which has a population of 5,651. Three off-
sale licenses are permitted based on this population, and currently there are eight licenses in the tract.
One of these licenses is the Beer and Wine (Type 20) license associated with this grocery store, so the
actual number of off-sale licenses would not be increased by the proposed ABC license upgrade.
The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1428, which has a crime rate that is 88% above the
citywide average. There have been 19 calls for service to this location in the past year in response to
three petty thefts, six burglar alarms, three trespassing, two reports of drinking in public, two lost or
stolen property reports, one fraud, one person down and one assault and battery. The crime rate within
¼ mile of this property is 276% above the citywide average based upon calls for service. These calls
consisted of 26 simple assaults, 51 petty thefts, 22 vandalisms and 19 cases of fraud.
According to the applicant, Buy Low Market conducts an alcohol sales training program for employees
that details California law governing the sale of alcohol. The store has security guards on-site every
business day from 2 p.m. until closing and a parking lot security company that patrols the retail center
parking lot 12 times per day. The grocery store installed 61 surveillance cameras this year that are
monitored within the store and at the corporate office. Because of the business practices of Buy Low
Market since it began operation in 2012, calls for police service have been cut by more than half than
the previous tenant at this location. 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.
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 Buy Low Market patrons. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Vazquez Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning Group Planning Services Manager
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 Plan
6. Floor Plan
7. Photographs
C-GRETAIL
TFOURPLEX
RM-4FOURPLEX
C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
C-GRESTAURANT
TSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
RM-4APTS5 DU
TRELIGIOUS USE
RM-4SUMMERHILL VILLAGE APTS92 DU
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
RM-3DUPLEX
C-GRETAIL
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4FOURPLEX RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN ADAIR PLN CURTIS CTE BANYAN LN
E REDWOOD DR N.
E BANYAN DR
E NORTH REDWOOD DR
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
N.
EAST STN. ACACIA STE. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E.MIRALO M A A V E
E . B R O A D W A Y N.PLACENTIAAVEN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST1 0 8 4 -1086 North State College Bouleva rd
D EV No. 2 0 14-00117
Subject Property APN: 268-231-18268-231-15268-231-16268-231-01268-231-14268-231-17
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN ADAIR PLN CURTIS CTE BANYAN LN
E REDWOOD DR N.
E BANYAN DR
E NORTH REDWOOD DR
E. LINCOL
N
A
V
E
E. LA PALMA AVE
N. EAST
STN. ACACIA STE. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E.MIRALO M A A V E
E. BROADW
A
Y
N .PLACENTIAAVEN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST1084-1086 North State College Boulevard
DEV No. 2014-00117
Subject Property
APN: 268-231-18
268-231-15
268-231-16
268-231-01
268-231-14
268-231-17
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
NO. 2014-00112 TO PERMIT A TYPE 21 (OFF SALE GENERAL) ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00117)
(1084-1086 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD)
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. 2014-00112 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 Buy Low Market (herein referred to as the "Proposed
Project"), located at 1084-1086 North State College Boulevard 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 9.3 acres, is developed with a
retail commercial center, including a 24,443 square foot Buy Low 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 November 17, 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. 2014-00112, 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. 2014-00112, 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 864.02 with a population of 5,651
that allows for three (3) off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently eight (8) off-sale ABC
licenses in the tract (one associated with this Property). The Property is located in Police
Reporting District No. 1428, which has a crime rate that is 88% 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 276% 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 wine, beer and
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. 2014-00112, 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
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00112
(DEV2014-00117)
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 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
3 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
4 The area of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirit displays shall not exceed 10% of the
total display area in the building occupying the Property.
Police Department
5 Sale of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be made to customers only when the
customers are inside the building.
Police Department
6 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
7 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
8 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
9 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
10 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
- 6 - PC2014-***
11 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
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 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
16 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
17 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
- 7 - PC2014-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05762
LOCATION: 2021 East Via Burton Street (Anaheim X-CEL)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Ramon Sanchez and the
property owner is the Klaus Berger Trust.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
establish a physical fitness facility within an existing industrial building.
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 (Class
1, Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05762.
BACKGROUND: This 1.9-acre project site is developed with a 24-unit, 34,760
square foot industrial complex. The property is located in the Industrial (I) zone and
the General Plan designates this property for Industrial land uses. The property is
surrounded by an Orange County Flood Control District water basin to the north,
industrial uses to the east and west and a motel to the south across Via Burton Street.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to open a 2,680 square foot physical fitness
facility. No changes to the interior or exterior of the building are proposed. Hourly
classes would be held from 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. to 9:15 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Weekend classes would take place on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 10
a.m. Strength and conditioning, weightlifting, gymnastics and mobility classes would
be offered at this facility. All fitness activities would be conducted within the
building. The typical class size would be twelve participants and two certified
personal trainers.
ANALYSIS: A conditional use permit is required to permit physical fitness facilities in
the Industrial zone in order to determine compatibility with the surrounding area. A
variety of industrial uses are permitted in this zone, including warehousing and
manufacturing operations. Staff does not expect that the establishment of this use would
impact operation or expansion of other nearby businesses. Conversely, the fitness
customers would not be impacted by surrounding industrial activities. Staff believes
that the proposed use will be compatible with other businesses in the surrounding area.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05762
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Parking: The Zoning Code requires that parking requirements be calculated by combining the
needs of the physical fitness facility and the industrial uses on the property. The fitness facility and
the industrial businesses require a total of 69 parking spaces; 15 are required for the fitness facility
and 54 for the industrial uses. The property contains a total of 77 parking spaces; therefore, the
parking provided for the combined uses complies with the City’s requirements.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed physical fitness business is compatible with the
adjacent industrial uses in the surrounding area and the number of parking spaces provided exceeds
the Code requirements. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Vazquez Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning Group Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Applicant’s Letter of Request
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. Photographs
5. Site Plan
6. Floor Plan
IINDUSTRIAL
IULTIMATE10SHOWGIRLS
C-GMOTEL 6
IRETAIL
ISINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IAUTOREPAIR/SERVICE
IINDUSTRIAL
C-GRETAIL
IINDUSTRIAL
C-GRESTAURANT
IINDUSTRIAL
IORANGE COUNTYWATER DISTRICT
IORANGE COUNTYTRANSIT AUTHORITYFACILITY
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
C-GRETAIL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIALIINDUSTRIAL
N STATE COLLEGE BLVDN DALY STE VIA BURTON ST
E VIA BURTON ST
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
N. ACACIA STE.MIRA L O M A A V E
N.
EAST STE .O R A N G E T H O R P E A V E
2 0 2 1 East Via Burt on St reet
D EV No. 2 0 14-00099
Subject Property APN: 338-181-11338-181-10
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
N STATE COLLEGE BLVDN DALY STE VIA BURTON ST
E VIA BURTON ST
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
N. ACACIA STE.MIR A L O M A A V E
N.
EAST
ST
E .O R A N G E T H O R P E A V E
2021 East Via Burton Street
DEV No. 2014-00099
Subject Property
APN: 338-181-11
338-181-10
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05762
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00099)
(2021 EAST VIA BURTON STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05762
to permit a physical fitness facility within an existing industrial building (referred to herein as the
"Proposed Project") for that certain real property located at 2021 East Via Burton 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 approximately 1.9 acres in size and is currently
developed with two industrial buildings. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for
Industrial land uses. The Property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone. As such, the Property is
subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zones) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); 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 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
WHEREAS, on November 17, 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. 2014-05762 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 with respect to a physical fitness facility in an existing industrial building,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed request to permit a physical fitness facility within an existing
industrial building is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the
classes of allowable uses set forth in Table 10-A as "Dance & Fitness Studios-Small", as
referenced in paragraph .0402 of subsection .040 of Section No. 18.10.030 of the Code.
- 1 - PC2014-***
2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit a physical fitness facility, as
conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the building is surrounded
by compatible buildings and uses; and, the physical fitness facility would be located within an
existing building with no adverse effects to adjoining land uses.
3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the physical fitness facility in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or
to the health and safety because the facility would be located within an existing industrial
building that is surrounded by other industrial and motel uses.
4. The traffic generated by the physical fitness facility will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the
surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use.
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 as the proposed
land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding industrial area and would not pose a
health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05762, 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 Anaheim
Municipal 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
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.
- 2 - PC2014-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of November 17, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05762
(DEV2014-00099)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 The operator of the business shall not permit and shall take all steps
necessary to prevent its patrons from using any portion of a public
street for any exercise or physical fitness activities associated with
the business.
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
2 There shall be no outdoor storage of physical fitness equipment. Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
3 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of
Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the
business operation as described in that document shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director to determine
substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
4 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
5 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
6 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
- 5 - PC2014-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Front of Anaheim
X-Cel Units
Street view (Front of
Unit Looking East)
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
2021 - Building
View From Via
Burton
Street view (Front of
Unit Looking West)
Entrance from Via
Burton St.
Unit View-From Back
of Unit to the front
Unit View-From Front
of Unit to the Back
Lobby entrance to unit K
Lobby - unit K
Restroom – Unit J
Restroom - Unit K
Lobby entrance
to unit J
Business - East of property
Lobby - Unit J
Business directly across
Street of Property (South
of Property)
Front of 2031 E Via
Burton Building
Business Across Street
(Southwest of Property)
Business - West of
the Property
M
L
K
J
I
G
C
H
D
F
E
B
2031 E Via Burton (17895 sqft)
M
L
K
J
I
G
C
H
D
B
F
E
2021/2031 E. Via Burton St Anaheim Ca 92805
SITE PLAN
2021 E Via Burton (16865 sqft)
Total Parking – 77 Spaces plus open street parking
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
2021-J
2021-K
67' - 0"40' - 0"3068
3068
3068
3068
3068
3068
5' - 6"5' - 6"
2068
Column
Office
Office
2068
11' - 10"
Floor Plan 2021-J/K E. Via Burton, Anaheim
0'4'8'12'24'
SCALE 1/8"=1'-0"
2680 SF
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: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2012-148
LOCATION: 200-282 North Lemon Street, 107-127 West Lincoln Avenue and
120 West Cypress Street (AT&T Property)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and owner is Dustin Smith
representing Equity Residential and the agent is Phillip Schwartze.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to establish a tentative parcel map consolidating
six parcels into one parcel to accommodate a previously-approved mixed-use project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that a previously Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2012-148.
BACKGROUND: This 4.29 acre site is bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the east,
Lincoln Avenue to the south, Lemon Street to the west and Cypress Street to the north
and is developed with a vacant AT&T office building and a parking lot. The site is in
the General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay Zones. The site is
designated for Mixed Use land uses by the General Plan. The surrounding land uses
include single and multiple-family residences, a church and commercial uses to the
north, a retail center to the south, and office buildings to the east and west.
On April 21, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a conditional
use permit and rezoning request to construct a 4-story, 220-unit apartment building
with 18,000 square feet of retail space on this site. On July 15, 2014 the City
Council adopted an ordinance rezoning these properties from the Transition (T)
Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate six parcels into one parcel to
facilitate development of the previously-approved apartment project. No
modifications to the previously-approved project are proposed as part of this request.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2012-148
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ANALYSIS: A parcel map is required in order to consolidate five or more parcels into a single
parcel. 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 proposed
subdivision would comply with all of the development standards of the C-G and Mixed-Use
Overlay zones. The subdivision would also be in conformance with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, which includes the following goals:
• Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address
the City’s diverse housing needs.
• Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image
and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
• Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
• Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through
strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision as the request is
consistent with the goals of the General Plan and complies with the development standards for
the C-G and Mixed-Use Overlay zones.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Tentative Parcel Map Resolution
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.
3. Tentative Parcel Map
4. Previously-Approved Mitigation Monitoring Program is available at:
http://www.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/EnvDocs/ATT4_Previously_Approved_
MND.pdf.
TVACANT
C-GRELIGIOUSUSE
RS-3TRIPLEX
C-GAUTOREPAIR/SERVICE
RS-3S.F.R.
RS-3TRIPLEX
RS-2S.F.R.
RS-2TRIPLEX
C-GAUTO SALES
C-GRETAIL C-GKRAEMERBUILDINGOFFICES
C-GAUTOBODYSHOP
C-GOFFICES
RM-4PARKPROMENADEAPTS24 DU
RM-4 APTS12 DU
TRELIGIOUSUSE
C-GNIGHT CLUB
C-GOFFICES
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
RS-2S.F.R.
O-LOFFICES
RS-3VACANT
RS-2S.F.R.
T APTS20 DU
TPARKING LOT
C-GRETAIL
C-G (DMU)RETAIL
RM-4 APTS10 DU
C-GAPTS5 DU
C-GRETAIL
RS-3S.F.R.
RM-3RETAIL
C-GKRAEMERBUILDINGAPTS
TPEARSON PARK
W LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI
M BL
VDN ANAHEI
M BLVDE L IN C O L N A V E
N LEMON STN CLAUDI
NA STW C Y P R E S S S T
W A D E L E S T
E C Y P R E S S S T
E A D E L E S T
E C E N T E R S TN CLEMENTI
NE STW O A K S T
S.
EAST STW .LIN C O L N A V E
E. LA PALMA AVE
E . L I N C O L N A V EN.
EAST STW. LA PALMA AVE
N.
HARBOR BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y
N
.ANAHEI
MBLVDE .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 Y
2 0 0 -2 82 North Lemon Street107-1 27 West Lincoln A venue120 West Cypress St re et
D E V N o . 2011 -0 0 1 10A
Subject Property APN: 255-081-05255-081-06255-081-01255-081-02255-081-04255-081-03
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
W LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI
M BL
VDN ANAHEI
M BLVDE L IN C O L N A V E
N LEMON STN CLAUDI
NA STW C Y P R E S S S T
W A D E L E S T
E C Y P R E S S S T
E A D E L E S T
E C E N T E R S TN CLEMENTI
NE STW O A K S T
S.
EAST STW .LIN C O L N A V E
E. LA PALMA AVE
E . L I N C O L N A V EN.
EAST STW. LA PALMA AVE
N.
HARBOR BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y
N
.ANAHEI
MBLVDE .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 Y
2 0 0 -2 82 North Lemon Street107-1 27 West Lincoln A venue120 West Cypress St re et
D E V N o . 2011 -0 0 1 10A
Subject Property APN: 255-081-05255-081-06255-081-01255-081-02255-081-04255-081-03
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2012-148 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2011-00110A)
(200-282 NORTH LEMON STREET, 107-127 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE AND
120 WEST CYPRESS STREET)
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. 2012-
148 to consolidate six parcels into one parcel (herein referred to as the "Parcel Map") for certain
real property located at 200-282 North Lemon Street, 107-127 West Lincoln Avenue and 120
West Cypress 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 4.29 acres, is developed with a
vacant building and a parking lot. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Mixed
Use land uses. The Property is located within the General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed-Use
(MU) Overlay Zones. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards
described in Chapter 18.08 (General Commercial Zone) and Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use Overlay
Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of its Resolution No. PC2014-034 on April 21, 2014,
the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program ("MMP") in connection with its approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2012-05597 and Reclassification No. 2012-00248 for a mixed-use project proposed for
development on the Property consisting of 220 apartments and 18,000 square feet of commercial
retail uses (the “Project”). The MND and the MMP shall be referred to herein collectively as the
"Previously-approved MND"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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, based upon a review of the Parcel Map and consideration of the
information contained in the Previously-approved MND, the Planning Commission hereby finds
and determines that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (herein referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), (i) the
Previously-approved MND serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the
proposed Parcel Map and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA; (ii) none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent
negative declaration or environmental impact report have occurred in connection with the
proposed Parcel Map; and (iii) no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared
under CEQA for the proposed Parcel Map; 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. 2012-148, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. The proposed subdivision, including its design and improvements, is consistent
with the Mixed Use land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and, the zoning and
development standards of the “C-G” General Commercial and “Mixed-Use Overlay” zones
contained in Chapter 18.08 (General Commercial Zone) and Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use Overlay
Zone) of the Code; and
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Parcel Map in
conformance with the development standards of the “C-G” General Commercial and “Mixed-
Use Overlay” zones; and
3. The design of the subdivision 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 subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems, as it is anticipated that the existing commercial building will be
demolished and replaced with multiple family residential buildings in conformance with the
development standards of the “C-G” General Commercial and “Mixed-Use Overlay” zones; and
5. The design of the subdivision 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2012-148, 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 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.
- 2 - 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 November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2012-148
(DEV2011-00110A)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL MAP
1 The Developer/Property owner shall acquire in fee (or as approved
by City Engineer) from the legal owner that portion of land that is in
excess outside of the ultimate street right-of-way for Lincoln Avenue
and Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along
these streets. The legal owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim
ultimate right-of-way easements fifty five (55) feet in width for road,
public utilities and other public purposes along Lincoln Avenue and
Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along these
streets.
Public Works,
Development Services
2 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City
of Anaheim an easement for street, public utility and other public
purposes for the widening of Cypress Street and Lemon Street to their
ultimate right-of-way width of 30 feet and 28.75 feet from the street
centerlines, respectively.
Public Works,
Development Services
3 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section
and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include
provisions for maintenance of private facilities, including compliance
with approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance
exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include parkway
landscaping and irrigation on Anaheim Blvd, Lincoln Avenue, Lemon
Street and Cypress Street. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently
with the final map.
Public Works,
Development Services
4 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for all required public
works improvements; including traffic signal and related
improvements, striping, storm drain, sewer, landscape and irrigation
improvements, in Lincoln Avenue, Lemon Street, Anaheim Blvd and
Cypress Street to the Public Works Department/Development
Services. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City
Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney prior to final
map approval. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
Public Works,
Development Services
5 The property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public
improvements at the legal property owner’s expense. Said agreement
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision
Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
6 All parcels shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Public Works,
Development Services
- 5 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
7 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain
a demolition permit from the Building Division.
Public Works,
Development Services
GENERAL
8 The Parcel Map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be filed in
the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
9 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of
Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
10 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
11 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
- 6 - PC2014-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Uptown Village
City of Anaheim, Orange County, California
Prepared for:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
714.765.5395
Contact: Scott Koehm, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Michael Houlihan, AICP, Project Manager
Collin Ramsey, Environmental Planner
January 24, 2012
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................vii
Section 1: Introduction.........................................................................................................1
1.1 - Purpose...............................................................................................................1
1.2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................1
1.3 - Project Description..............................................................................................1
1.3.1 - Residential Use....................................................................................2
1.3.2 - Retail Use.............................................................................................2
1.3.3 - Onsite Improvements...........................................................................2
1.3.4 - Zoning Change...................................................................................12
1.4 - Intended Uses of this Document.......................................................................12
1.5 - Environmental Setting.......................................................................................12
1.5.1 - Existing Land Use ..............................................................................12
1.5.2 - Surrounding Land Use .......................................................................13
Section 2: Environmental Checklist..................................................................................15
1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................15
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................15
3. Air Quality......................................................................................................16
4. Biological Resources.....................................................................................16
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................17
6. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................17
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................18
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................18
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................19
10. Land Use and Planning.................................................................................20
11. Mineral Resources.........................................................................................20
12. Noise .............................................................................................................21
13. Population and Housing ................................................................................21
14. Public Services..............................................................................................21
15. Recreation.....................................................................................................22
16. Transportation / Traffic ..................................................................................22
17. Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................23
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................................23
Section 3: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.......................................................27
1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................27
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................34
3. Air Quality......................................................................................................36
4. Biological Resources.....................................................................................52
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................55
6. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................61
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................65
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................69
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................76
10. Land Use and Planning.................................................................................84
11. Mineral Resources.........................................................................................86
12. Noise .............................................................................................................87
13. Population and Housing ..............................................................................104
14. Public Services............................................................................................106
15. Recreation...................................................................................................110
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Table of Contents Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
16. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................112
17. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................131
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................137
Section 4: References.......................................................................................................145
Section 5: List of Preparers .............................................................................................153
Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant....................................153
Technical Subconsultants .......................................................................................153
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Appendix B: Cultural Resources
Appendix C: Geology / Soils
Appendix D: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Appendix E: Hydrology
Appendix F: Noise Analysis
Appendix G: Transportation
Appendix H: Public Services
Appendix I: Utilities and Service Systems
List of Tables
Table 1: CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters....................................................41
Table 2: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction).......................................................43
Table 3: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ..........................................................44
Table 4: SCAQMD Mass Thresholds....................................................................................45
Table 5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions......................................................................46
Table 6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated)....................................................47
Table 7: Operational Emissions............................................................................................47
Table 8: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (2020)......................................................67
Table 9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)........................................................79
Table 10: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................79
Table 11: Existing Noise Level Measurements.....................................................................87
Table 12: Noise Levels 50 feet from Roadway Centerline....................................................95
Table 13: Interior Noise Levels .............................................................................................96
Table 14: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration........................................................99
Table 15: Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ....................................100
Table 16: Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................102
Table 17: Significant Impact Criteria for Intersections.........................................................114
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates v
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 18: Related Projects Trip Generation........................................................................116
Table 19: Project Trip Generation Summary.......................................................................117
Table 20: Existing Year 2011 No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project -
AM Peak Hour LOS Results..............................................................................118
Table 21: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project) -
PM Peak Hour LOS Results..............................................................................119
Table 22: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment
Level of Service Results....................................................................................121
Table 23: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - AM Peak Hour LOS
Results ..............................................................................................................123
Table 24: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS
Results ..............................................................................................................124
Table 25: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment
Level of Service Results....................................................................................126
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................3
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map - Topographic Base...................................................................5
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map - Aerial Base..............................................................................7
Exhibit 4: Site Plan..................................................................................................................9
Exhibit 5: Conceptual Design Drawings................................................................................31
Exhibit 6: Noise Meter Locations...........................................................................................89
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations
Michael Brandman Associates vii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACSD Anaheim City School District
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFD Anaheim Fire Department
APD Anaheim Police Department
AQMP Air Quality Management District
ARB Air Resources Board
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BMP Best Management Practice
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C-G General Commercial
CO Carbon Monoxide
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DD Design Development
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances
DU Dwelling Unit
DWF Dry Weather Flow
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FID Facility Inventory Database
HAZNET Facility and Manifest Database
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
IS Initial Study
IWMD Integrated Waste Management Department
LOS Level of Service
MBA Michael Brandman Associates
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
MU Mixed Use
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
viii Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Agency
OCWD Orange County Water District
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
PM Particulate Matter
POG Petroleum Oil and Grease
PPM Parts Per Million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
PRC Public Resources Code
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goals
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SOx Sulfur Oxides
Sq Ft Square Feet
SR State Route
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
T Transitional
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TPH-D Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Diesel
TPH-G Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Gasoline
TSF Thousand Square Feet
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
V/C Volume to Capacity
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
VdB Vibration Velocity
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify the
potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 220-unit mixed-use
residential/commercial development in the City of Anaheim (City). This IS/MND includes
recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to levels that are considered less than
significant. This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Anaheim’s local guidelines for
implementing CEQA.
The purpose of the proposed Uptown Village project (project) is to provide 220 studio, one-bedroom,
and two-bedroom units, along with 18,000 square feet (sq ft) of commercial/retail space, for the
residents of the City of Anaheim. The proposed project would redevelop a highly visible vacant and
blighted property in the center of the City, while helping the City meet its future housing needs goals.
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency in
the preparation of this IS/MND. The City of Anaheim has primary responsibility for approval or
denial of the proposed project and will ultimately be responsible for project implementation.
The intended use of this IS/MND is to provide adequate environmental analysis related to the actions
that are needed to achieve development of the proposed project. These actions include the approval
of a condition use permit. This IS/MND includes adequate analysis for demolition, construction, and
operational activities associated with the proposed project.
1.2 - Project Location
The proposed Uptown Village project would be located on the northwest corner of South Anaheim
Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue in the central portion of the City of Anaheim, California
(Exhibit 1). The project site is bound by E. Cypress Street to the north, S. Anaheim Boulevard to the
east, W. Lincoln Avenue to the south, and N. Lemon Street to the west (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3).
1.3 - Project Description
The proposed Uptown Village project would replace the existing onsite vacant use that includes a
25,000 sq ft two-story structure and surface parking lots with a mixed-use residential and retail
development on 4.29 acres. The development would encompass the entire property and include a
four-story multi-family residential complex with 220 residential units and 18,000 sq ft of
commercial/retail space (Exhibit 4).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Introduction Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
1.3.1 - Residential Use
The proposed project would include 220 residential units comprised of studio, one-, and two-bedroom
units, summarized as follows:
• Studio Units: 617 sq ft; 34 total units
• One-Bedroom Units: 723-725 sq ft; 102 total units
• Two bedroom Units: 1,067-1,141 sq ft; 84 total units
Ancillary uses associated with the residential development would include the following
• Leasing Office: 2,370 sq ft
• Fitness Center: 1,190 sq ft
• Clubhouse/Community Room: 1,400 sq ft
• Swimming Pool and Spa Area
1.3.2 - Retail Use
The proposed project would include 18,000 sq ft of first-floor commercial/retail space, summarized as
follows:
• One 8,600 sq ft space
• One 9,400 sq ft space
Although specific retail uses or retail tenants are currently unknown, all retail uses would be required
to comply with the Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, which outlines
which uses are permissible and which are conditionally permissible within the Mixed Use (MU)
Overlay Zone (refer to Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning).
1.3.3 - Onsite Improvements
Parking and Circulation
Parking
The site plan provides for 503 spaces, including the 67 parking spaces that would be dedicated for the
adjacent AT&T operations. The proposed project includes a three-level parking garage surface
parking spaces for retail use and guests.
Site Access
Access to the proposed project is proposed via a new driveway on Lemon Street and a new driveway
on Cypress Street.
NORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Orange County
San Bernardino County
Orange County
Los Angeles County
91
1
83
60
91
91
55
57
241
261
241
5
405
405
5
210
Ora
nge C
ounty
Riverside C
ounty
60
605
5
710
10
2
110
22
133
1
Bell
Chino
Upland
Irvine
Orange
Walnut
Pomona
Covina
Anaheim
Compton
Norwalk
Ontario
Monrovia
Commerce
Alhambra
Glendora
Montclair
Claremont
Santa Ana
Fullerton
San Dimas
Costa Mesa
Seal Beach
Long Beach
Chino Hills
Lake Forest
Yorba Linda
Laguna Hills
Garden Grove
Laguna Niguel
Newport Beach
Fountain Valley
Huntington Beach
East Los Angeles
Cleveland NF
Angeles NF
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Prado Flood Control Basin
Santiago Reservoir
00550033 • 03/2012 | 1_regional.mxd
Exhibit 1Regional Location Map
Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2012.
5 0 52.5
Miles
Project Site
TextNOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Site
00550033 • 03/2012 I 2_local_topo.mxd
Exhibit 2Local Vicinity MapTopographic BaseNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: TOPO! USGS Anaheim, CA (1978) 7.5' DRG.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Project Site
00550033 • 03/2012 I 3_local_aerial.mxd
Exhibit 3Local Vicinity MapAerial BaseNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION
La Palma AveLa Palma Ave
Lincoln AveLincoln AveAnaheim
B
lvdAnaheim
B
lvd
North StNorth St
La Verne StLa Verne St
Willhelmina StWillhelmina St
Alberta StAlberta St
Sycamore StSycamore St
Adele StAdele StCi
t
ron
S
tCi
t
ron
S
t
Lemon S
tLemon S
t
Santa Ana StSanta Ana St
Water StWater St
South StSouth StOl
ive
S
tOl
ive
S
t Paul
ine
S
tPaul
ine
S
t East
S
tEast
S
t
!"#$5 Harbo
r
B
lvdHarbo
r
B
lvd
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Project Site
00550033 • 01/2013 | 4_site_plan.mxd
Exhibit 4Site Plan
Source: Humphreys and Partners Architects, 2012.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Michael Brandman Associates
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Offsite Circulation Improvements
Cypress Street and Lemon Street, adjacent to the project site, are not constructed to ultimate
standards. Both streets are classified as “Interior Streets,” per the Street and Highway Sections
(Standard Detail No. 160-A) of the City of Anaheim’s Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction. An Interior Street has a public right of way width of 60-feet (or 30-feet to the
centerline from either side of the street).
Cypress Street is currently only 49.5 feet wide (or 24.75 feet to the centerline). Therefore, 5.25 feet
of right-of-way for the project site may have to be dedicated along Cypress Street. Lemon Street has
a public right-of-way of 56 feet, but is only 24.75-feet wide from the centerline of street to the project
site. Therefore, 4 feet of the project site along Lemon Street may have to be dedicated. If either or
both of these streets are widened, there are a number of utilities that would have to be relocated,
including, but not limited to, street lights, pull boxes, underground vaults, and traffic signs. An
existing handicapped ramp located on the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Lemon Street would
require replacement should the corner return be adjusted due to widening of either or both of these
streets.
Stormwater Collection and Treatment
Existing Drainage
In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed from the project site to both Lemon Street and
Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon Street is collected by a
catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue, while discharge to
Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street just east of Lemon
Street.
From the catch basins, stormwater is conveyed through the local MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System) before discharging into Carbon Creek Channel prior to entering Gilbert Retarding
Basin. Carbon Creek Channel serves as a principle tributary of the San Gabriel River Reach 1. A
portion of the San Gabriel River downstream of the Gilbert Retarding Basin is included on the 303(d)
list of impaired water bodies.
Proposed Drainage
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to one of two Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes located on the northwest and
southwest portion of the project site for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by one of four MaxWell IV
drywells located on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the site (see the Best Management
Practice [BMP] Exhibit in Appendix E, Hydrology, for the proposed locations of the Treatment
Control BMPs). Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes are pre-treatment devises used for
treatment done through drywells. When incorporated in the design of a stormwater collection system,
they prevent clogging of and preserve the life of drywells by reducing pollutants that affect drywell
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Introduction Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
performance, specifically debris, refuse, and sediment. The MaxWell IV drywells are designed to
capture and infiltrate the entire first flush, effectively resulting in the eliminations of all pollutants.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design
Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined
from the local historical rainfall record for the project area.
1.3.4 - Zoning Change
Most of the project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G), with the north-central portion
presently zoned Transitional (T). As part of the approval process, the proposed project would require
approval of a zoning change to Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to allow the residential and
commercial uses on the project site. Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code
indicates that within the MU Overlay Zone, multiple-family dwellings require a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). Additionally, certain commercial uses typically found in mixed-use developments
such as restaurants and general retail are permitted uses, while any establishment selling alcohol
require a CUP.
1.4 - Intended Uses of this Document
The Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed Uptown Village project would be used by the City of
Anaheim as the supporting documentation for the following potential project approvals.
• Zone Change
• Conditional Use Permit
• Building Permit
• Grading Permit
1.5 - Environmental Setting
1.5.1 - Existing Land Use
The project site currently consists of an approximately 4.29-acre property. Although presently
vacant, the project site has been extensively disturbed and developed. A roughly 25,000 sq ft two-
story building associated with a former AT&T call center operation is located on the southwest
portion of the project site. The balance of the project site has been paved and was used as a parking
lot for the AT&T operation.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Most of the project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G), with the north-central portion
presently zoned Transitional (T). The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map designates the
project site as Mixed Use.
1.5.2 - Surrounding Land Use
The surrounding project area consists of a predominantly urbanized setting containing a collection of
residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed land uses. Land uses immediately surrounding the
project site include:
• North: Cypress Street and residential, church, and automotive services/industrial uses
• East: Anaheim Boulevard and office use
• South: Lincoln Boulevard and a commercial shopping center
• West: Lemon Street and an active AT&T operations
• Northwest: 19-acre Pearson Park
Interstate (I) 5 is located approximately 1.5 miles to the west of the project site, State Route (SR) 91
is roughly 1.2 miles to the north, and SR-57 is located almost 2.2 miles to the east. Major landmarks
in the City of Anaheim include the Anaheim City Hall campus, which is approximately one-tenth
mile south of the project site; Disneyland theme park, which occurs roughly 1.5 miles southwest of
the site; and Anaheim Stadium, which is just over 2.8 miles southeast of the site.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
3. 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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
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 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
6. 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? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
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?
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
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?
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of 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?
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
11. 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?
12. 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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
13. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. 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?
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?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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?
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
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 / Services Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
As shown above, there are no environmental factors that would have a potential significant impact
after the implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 3: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The Anaheim General Plan Green Element identifies the Hill and Canyon Area of the
City, as well as the Santa Ana Mountains, as visually important amenities. These visually important
elements are located over five miles east of the project site. In addition, golf courses and the Santa
Ana River are identified as also providing visual relief from the built environment and are important
visual amenities and landmarks. In relation to the project site, the nearest golf course, the Dad Miller
Golf Course (430 North Gilbert Street), is located approximately 2.7 miles to the west, while the
Santa Ana River is located approximately 2.8 miles to the east. Due to the substantial distances
between the aforementioned visual amenities and the relatively consistent flat topography of the
general project area, none of the visual resources identified by the Green Element are visible from the
project site or surrounding land uses. Despite the proposed four-story elevation of the proposed
project, the multi-use residential building would not impede or effect views of scenic vistas, as there
are none visible from the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic vistas
would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, SR-91 (Riverside Freeway), between
SR-55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and Weir Canyon Road is officially designated as a State Scenic
Highway. This segment of SR-91 is located approximately five miles east of the project site. As
such, the project site is not within the viewshed of this portion of SR-91. No other roadways or
highways within the City of Anaheim are designated by the State as Scenic Highways. Therefore, no
impacts associated with State Scenic Highways would occur.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. In its existing condition, the project site consists of a vacant 25,000
sq ft commercial building and an associated parking lot. The City of Anaheim General Plan currently
designates the project site as “Mixed Use.” Although the project site is presently zoned either
General Commercial (C-G) or Transitional (T), the approval process for the proposed project would
include a zoning change to Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone as well. Additionally, according to the
General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is located within both the Anaheim Colony, which is
bordered by the original boundaries of the City (North, South, East and West Streets), and Downtown
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
areas of the City. As such, development on the project site must comply with both the 1999 Anaheim
Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and the 2003 Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and
Design Guidelines, as well as the provision contained within the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Per the General Plan Land Use Element, the City’s Land Use Plan encourages the introduction of
mixed use development into the Downtown core and the transition of older industrial areas to
residential neighborhoods. The Community Design Element includes provisions specifically tailored
to Mixed Use Development, including the following goals and policies:
Goal 8.1
Anaheim’s mixed use areas are attractively designed, pedestrian-friendly, easily
accessible, and contain a proper blend of commercial retail, office, and residential
uses.
Policies:
1) Encourage design flexibility in mixed-use development by allowing both a
vertical and/or horizontal mix of uses.
2) In vertical mixed-use, site retail or office uses on the ground floor, with
residential and/or office uses above.
3) Encourage architecture that divides individual buildings into a base, middle
and top (i.e., second story and higher density residential uses could
incorporate different window treatment, architectural detailing, colors,
balconies, and bays). For two-story buildings, ground floor retail uses should
be distinguished from second story façades, with both containing rich surface
articulation. Rooflines should have a finished look with cornices, parapets or
other finishing details.
4) Locate commercial/retail uses near the sidewalk to provide high visibility
from the street.
5) Design development with the pedestrian in mind by including wide
sidewalks, canopy street trees, sitting areas and clearly defined pedestrian
routes.
6) With large-scale mixed-use development, orient the tallest portions of the
buildings towards the center of the site and ensure that the height of the
buildings at the periphery are compatible with adjacent development.
7) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking by providing either parking
structures, rear- or side-street parking with effective landscape buffering.
8) Segregate residential parking from commercial and office parking.
9) Locate mixed-use development in areas of high visibility and accessibility,
and along streets that balance vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
10) Strategically locate potentially disruptive retail uses such as nightclubs or
bars to avoid future conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
11) Provide each residential use with its own private space (such as balconies,
patios or terraces) and larger communal spaces such as lobbies, central
gardens or courtyards.
12) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or
locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
The Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan establishes guidelines for new residential
construction (new commercial or mixed-use construction standards were not addressed) within the
Anaheim Colony area, including the following:
Those considering new residential construction within the District should refer to the
City of Anaheim Residential Design Guidelines. The basic elements of the
guidelines include the following. New houses within the district must assert their
identity in harmony with that of their street and neighborhood.
Site planning new construction in the context of infill projects requires special
attention to four primary issues:
1) The design of infill architecture should be compatible in such elements as
style, height, proportion, and materials of surrounding neighborhoods.
2) The relationship of houses to each other, to the surrounding open spaces, and
to the street.
3) The functional and aesthetic design of open space.
4) The distribution, layout, and character of parking.
Included among these are variables such as circulation, access, security, convenience,
and recreation which provide for full enjoyment of a dwelling.
The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines builds upon the Anaheim Colony
Historic District Preservation Plan, creating architecture guidelines in addition to those design
standards previously established. Guidelines address residential and commercial individually, and
standards associated with mixed use projects are not specifically outlined:
Residential
1) Desired building materials consist primarily of wood, brick, terra cotta, river
rock, stone, and plaster. Stucco over wood detracts from historic character of
homes. Natural materials rather than manufactured substitutes should be
used.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
2) Front fences along the public street are discouraged because they interrupt
the continuous green space provided by front lawns.
Commercial
1. Uniform parkways with evenly spaced street trees and streetlights provide
visual consistency and are compatible with the historic character of certain
sections of the Colony.
2. In areas transitioning to residential uses, parkways consistent with the
historic scale and design patterns are encouraged.
3. In areas of interface between contrasting land uses or buildings of different
scale, special attention should be given to buffering or softening the impact
of adjacent property uses.
A review of the exterior designs for the proposed project (Exhibit 5) indicates that the project would
be consistent with all applicable provisions contained within the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Code, the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan, and the Anaheim Colony Vision,
Principles and Design Guidelines.
The proposed building façades would include varying surfaces constructed of differing materials,
including substantial use of brick, with a varying, yet complimentary paint scheme. A collection of
architectural details and window designs would be used to divide and distinguish different levels and
sections of the building. The roofline and upper façades of the building would vary and contain
distinctive details and elevations. Overall, the proposed project’s exterior design would be consistent
with the existing applicable provisions in the Anaheim Colony and Downtown areas, as well as with
similar existing developments within the project area.
The proposed project would aesthetically improve upon the existing blighted condition of the project
site by removing a vacant commercial building and an associated parking lot and replacing these uses
with a mixed use development that would help develop and maintain the visual character of Anaheim
Colony and Downtown areas. Therefore, impacts associated with the existing visual character would
be less than significant.
00550033 • 04/2012 | 5_concept_des_draw.cdr
Exhibit 5
Conceptual Design Drawings
Michael Brandman Associates
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGE
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: KHR Associates, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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 following discusses both light and glare impacts associated with
the proposed project.
Lighting
Section 18.32.130.050 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code establishes exterior lighting standards
for Mixed Use Zones, which states, “Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall not
adversely impact surrounding residential uses, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and
security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash, oscillate, or be of unusually high intensity or
brightness (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004).” All exterior lighting associated with the proposed
project would comply with these provisions. To avoid fugitive light impacts, exterior lighting would
be shielded and directed away from any potentially sensitive receptors, including onsite residential
uses and all offsite uses. Additionally, due to the inclusion of the parking garage within the proposed
building, lighting impacts traditionally associated with parking facilities (e.g., light standards, vehicle
headlights) would be contained within the interior of the building and would not affect nearby
sensitive receptors.
Glare
The proposed project would include a combination of reflective (e.g., windows) and non-reflective
(e.g., bricks) materials along the exterior façades. Glare impacts would be primarily contained to the
use of windows outside of the residential and commercial units. The majority of these windows,
however, would be recessed and may be only partially exposed to sunlight. Glare impacts from the
recessed windows would be less than significant.
The proposed project also includes surface parking areas. These areas may result in nominal glare
associated with windshields and metallic vehicle surfaces. However, glare impacts from vehicles
would be intermittent and would be less than significant,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
2. Agriculture and Forestry 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 as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California
Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. According to
California Department of Conservation’s 2010 Orange County Important Farmland map (California
Department of Conservation 2011), the project site is not located on or adjacent to Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other lands identified by the State or the
City for agricultural use. The nearest parcel identified as Unique Farmland occurs approximately
2.35 miles southwest of the project site, along the Union Pacific railroad tracks and Euclid Street.
Due to the relatively large distance between the project site and the closest Unique Farmland,
development of the proposed project would not convert or otherwise impact any agricultural
operations occurring at this location. Therefore, no impacts associated with conversion of Important
Farmland would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is located within a largely urbanized setting. According to the
California Department of Conservation’s 2004 Williamson Act Parcels map (California Department
of Conservation 2004), the project site is not located on or adjacent to lands under a Williamson Act
contract. The closest parcel identified as under a Williamson Act contract occurs approximately 8.75
miles southeast of the project site in the unincorporated area of North Tustin. Due to the large
distance between the project site and the nearest Williamson Act contract parcel, development of the
proposed project would not conflict with these Williamson Act contract lands or otherwise impact
existing zoning for any other agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with Williamson
Act contract lands and agricultural zoning would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. The project site is not
located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The
nearest forested area to the project site is the Cleveland National Forest, which occurs approximately
10 miles east of the site. As such, development of the proposed project would not conflict with
existing zoning for or cause rezoning of any forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts
associated with forestland and timberland zoning would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is located within a largely urban setting. The project site is not located
on or adjacent to forestland. The nearest forested area to the project site is the Cleveland National
Forest, which occurs approximately 10 miles east of the site. As such, development of the proposed
project would not impact forestland. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of or conversion
of forest land would occur.
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
forestland to non-forest use?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site is not located on or adjacent to any lands
identified either by the State or by the City of Anaheim as Farmland or forestland. The proposed
project would not include any improvements that, due to their location or nature, would result in
conversion of Farmland or forestland uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with the conversion of
Farmland or forestland would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
3. 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?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the 1993 South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Handbook, there are two key indicators of consistency
with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP):
1. Indicator: 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.
Project applicability: applicable and assessed below.
2. Indicator: A project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in the
AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. The
Handbook indicates that key assumptions to use in this analysis are population number and
location and a regional housing needs assessment. The parcel-based land use and growth
assumptions and inputs used in the Regional Transportation Model run by the Southern
California Association of Governments that generated the mobile inventory used by the
SCAQMD for AQMP are not available. Therefore, this indicator is not applicable. Project
applicability: not applicable.
In addition to first indicator, consistency with the AQMP would also be determined based on whether
the proposed project would comply with applicable control measures, rules, and regulations, as
discussed below.
Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations
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.
As discussed in Section 3b), the proposed project could potentially violate an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce associated impacts to less than significant.
If project emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5, it
follows that the emissions could contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Air Basin is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the
Basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a monitoring station would not be consistent
with the goals of the AQMP, which are to achieve attainment of pollutants. As discussed in Section
3c), the proposed project would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute towards a cumulatively considerable regional air quality
violation impact.
Control Measures
The second indicator of whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the air quality plan is assessing the project’s compliance with the control measures in the 2003 and
the 2007 AQMPs.
The 2003 AQMP contains a number of land use and transportation control measures, including the
following: the District’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; State Control Measures
proposed by the Air Resources Board (ARB); and Transportation Control Measures provided by
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). ARB’s strategy for reducing mobile
source emissions include the following approaches: new engine standards; reduce emissions from in-
use fleet; require clean fuels; support alternative fuels and reduce petroleum dependency; work with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce emissions from national and State sources; and
pursue long-term advanced technology measures. Transportation control measures provided by
SCAG include those contained in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), the most current
version of which is the 2008 RTP. The RTP contains control measures to reduce emissions from on-
road sources by incorporating strategies such as high occupancy vehicle interventions, transit, and
information-based technology interventions. The proposed project would comply indirectly with the
control measures set by ARB and SCAG.
The primary focus of the 2007 AQMP is to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM2.5 ambient air
quality standard by 2015 and the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2024, while making expeditious
progress toward attainment of State standards. The proposed strategy, however, does not attain the
previous federal 1-hour ozone standard by 2010 as previously required prior to the recent change in
federal regulations. This is to be accomplished by building upon improvements from the previous
plans and incorporating all feasible control measures while balancing costs and socioeconomic
impacts. The 2007 AQMP indicates that PM2.5 is formed mainly by secondary reactions or sources.
Therefore, instead of reducing fugitive dust, the strategy for reducing PM2.5 focuses on reducing
precursor emissions including SOX, NOX, and VOC.
The Final 2007 AQMP control measures consist of four components. The first component is
SCAQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures. The Final 2007 AQMP includes 30
short-term and mid-term stationary and seven mobile source control measures for SCAQMD
implementation. A complete listing of the measures is contained in the 2007 AQMP and includes
measures such as VOC reductions from gasoline transfer and dispensing facilities, further NOX,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
reductions from space heaters, localized control program for PM emission hot spots and urban heat
islands, energy efficiency and conservation, etc. Some of the measures will become new rules, while
some will become amendments to existing rules. When the rules pass, the proposed project would be
required to comply with them.
The second component is ARB’s Proposed State Strategy, which includes short- and mid-term control
measures aimed at reducing emissions from sources that are primarily under State jurisdiction,
including on-road and off-road mobile sources, and consumer products. These measures are required
in order to achieve the remaining emission reductions necessary for PM2.5 attainment. ARB’s
strategy includes measures such as improvements to California’s Smog Check Program, expanded
passenger vehicle retirement, cleaner in-use heavy-duty trucks, reductions from port related sources,
cleaner off-road equipment, evaporative and exhaust strategies, pesticide strategies, etc. When these
measures are implemented by ARB, the proposed project would be required to comply with them.
The third component is SCAQMD Staff’s Proposed Policy Options to Supplement ARB’s Control
Strategy. SCAQMD staff believe that a combination of regulatory actions and public funding is the
most effective means of achieving emission reductions. As such, the 2007 Final AQMP proposes
three policy options for the decision makers to consider in achieving additional reductions. The first
option is to incorporate the SCAQMD proposed additional control measures as a menu of selections
further reducing emissions from sources primarily under state and national jurisdiction. The second
option is to have the State fulfill its NOX emission reduction obligations under the 2003 AQMP by
2010 for its short-term defined control measures plus additional reductions needed to meet the NO X
emission target between 2010 and 2014. The third option is based on the same rate of progress under
the first policy option, but relies heavily on public funding assistance to achieve the needed NOX
reductions via accelerated fleet turnover to post-2010 on-road emission standards or the cleanest off-
road engine standards in effect today or after 2010. This strategy does not apply to the proposed
project.
The fourth component consists of Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures provided
by SCAG. Transportation plans within the Air Basin are statutorily required to conform to air quality
plans in the region, as established by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act and reinforced by other
subsequent applicable acts. The region must demonstrate that its transportation plans and programs
conform to the mandate to meet the federal ambient air quality standards in a timely manner. The
RTP, prepared by SCAG, is developed every 4 years with a 20-year planning horizon to meet the
long-term transportation planning requirements for emission reductions from on-road mobile sources
within the Air Basin. The biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program requires that the
short-term implementation requirements of the Transportation Conformity Rule are met by SCAG.
The first 2 years of the program are fiscally constrained and demonstrate timely implementation of a
special category of transportation projects called Transportation Control Measures. In general,
Transportation Control Measures are those projects that provide emission reductions from on-road
mobile sources, based on changes in the patterns and modes by which the regional transportation
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
system is used. Strategies are grouped into three categories: high occupancy vehicle strategy, transit
and systems management, and information-based technology (traveling during a less congested time
of day). SCAG approved the transportation measures in the RTP, which have been included in the
region’s air quality plans. The Transportation Control Measures would be implemented and would
subsequently reduce emissions in the Air Basin.
The proposed project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations.
Applicable SCAQMD rules include:
• SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the
comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
• SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation
activities. The rule requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a
nuisance off site. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best
Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils,
covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour,
sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when
winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.
• SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new
development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-
fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device
burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less
than one million British thermal units per hour.
• SCAQMD Rule 1108 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the
volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This
rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all
asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and
limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of
paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during
construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• SCAQMD Rule 1143 governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents
used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other
solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC
content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must
comply with this rule.
• SCAQMD Rule 1415, Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Stationary Air Conditioning
Systems. The SCAQMD originally adopted Rule 1415 to reduce ozone-depleting refrigerant
emissions from stationary, non-residential air conditioning (comfort cooling) and refrigeration
systems with full charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds, and using Class I and Class II
refrigerants. Recently, the SCAQMD amended Rule 1415 to include high-global warming
potential refrigerants. Further, the rule now applies only to air conditioning systems with full
charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant.
The incorporation of the SCAQMD Rules listed above as well as the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, impacts associated with the applicable air quality plans would be less than
significant.
MM AQ-1 During project construction, the developer shall require painting contractors to use
only paints and coatings with no more than 100 grams/liter of volatile organic
compound (VOC) for exterior applications and no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC
for interior applications. For a list of low VOC paints, see Website:
www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html.
MM AQ-2 During project construction, the developer shall require painting contractors to phase
paints and coatings applications such that no more than 2.5 percent of project
facilities are under active application on any one day. This measure results in an
estimated 42-day architectural coatings phase.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Since criteria pollutants are pollutants with ambient air quality
standards, analysis of this section is related to localized criteria pollutant impacts. Localized impacts
could potentially exceed State or federal standards for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, or carbon monoxide. Two
criteria are used to assess the significance of this section: (1) the localized construction analysis, and
(2) the CO hot spot analysis.
Construction Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts
through localized significance thresholds. Localized significance thresholds represent the maximum
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. Localized significance thresholds were
developed in recognition of the fact that the criteria pollutants CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NOX, an ozone
precursor, can have local impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the SMAQMD has
developed localized significance thresholds for each source receptor area for NOX, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5.
The SCAQMD has published their Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance
Thresholds. CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours
and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. In order to
compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables, the
CEQA document should contain in its project design features or its mitigation measures the following
parameters:
1) The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of
operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.
2) The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.
3) Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.
4) Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum
emissions.
The default CalEEmod construction equipment and activities were used in the analysis. No emissions
control devices were added to the equipment. The default equipment list is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters
Equipment Units Hours/Day Horsepower
Horsepower-
hours/day
Demolition Phase
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8 81 648
Excavators 3 8 157 3,768
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 358 5,728
Total Demolition horsepower hours/day 10,144
Site Preparation Phase
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 358 8,592
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 75 2,400
Total Site Preparation horsepower hours/day 10,992
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 1 (cont.): CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters
Equipment Units Hours/Day Horsepower
Horsepower-
hours/day
Site Grading Phase
Excavators 1 8 157 1,256
Graders 1 8 162 1,296
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 358 2,864
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 75 1,800
Total Site Grading horsepower hours/day 7,216
Building Construction Phase
Cranes 1 7 208 1,456
Forklifts 3 8 149 3,576
Generator Sets 1 8 84 672
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 75 1,575
Welders 1 8 46 368
Total Building Construction horsepower hours/day 7,647
Paving Phase
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 9 108
Pavers 1 8 89 712
Paving Equipment 2 6 82 984
Rollers 2 6 84 1,008
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 75 600
Total Paving horsepower hours/day 3,412
Notes:
The SCAQMD’s guidance indicates that tractors, graders, and dozers would impact 0.5 acres/8-hr-day and scrapers
would impact 1 acre per 8-hour day.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Construction emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, with the default construction phasing and
equipment list (provided in Table 1), except for the following modifications:
• Demolition assumed removal of a 25,000 sq ft building within the default 20-day demolition
phase;
• Site Preparation Phase was extended from the default of 5 days to 20 days to account for
removal of approximately 4 acres of pavement. At a depth of 1 foot of pavement removed, a
total of 6,453 cubic yards was assumed to require hauling to an offsite facility. Truck haul
capacity was assumed to be 20 cubic yards;
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, in particular, restricts the emissions of fugitive dust
from construction projects, incorporated. These measures are accounted for in CalEEMod as
“mitigation” because the model categorizes the measures as “mitigation,” even though they are
technically not mitigation.
The localized assessment methodology limits the emissions in the analysis to those generated from
onsite activities. The onsite emissions during construction are compared with the localized
significance thresholds and are provided in Table 2. Onsite construction emissions are from fugitive
dust during grading and off-road diesel emissions. As provided in Table 2, unmitigated emissions
during construction would not exceed the localized significance thresholds. The proposed project’s
CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 2: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction)
Onsite Emissions (pounds per day)
Onsite Activity NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 70.71 42.55 3.74 3.50
Site Preparation 79.99 45.35 7.45 5.87
Grading 48.81 31.00 4.01 3.38
Building Construction 34.66 23.45 2.28 2.28
Paving 24.85 16.79 2.07 2.07
Architectural Coatings 2.77 1.92 0.24 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions 79.99 45.35 7.45 5.87
Localized Significance Threshold 183 1,253 13 7
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the
maximum emissions that would occur in one day.
Source of emissions: CalEEMod 2012, Appendix A.
Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2009, for Source Receptor Area 17, at a distance of
25 meters.
The localized construction analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would not exceed the
localized significance thresholds for CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NOX. Therefore, the project would not
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation during construction.
Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The proposed project may be considered significant if a CO hot spot intersection analysis determines
that CO concentrations generated either directly or indirectly by the project cause a localized
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
violation of the State CO 1-hour standard of 20 ppm, State CO 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, federal CO
1-hour standard of 35 ppm, or federal CO 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO hot spot) are associated with traffic congestion and
idling or slow moving vehicles. To provide a worst-case scenario, CO concentrations are estimated at
project-impacted intersections, where the concentrations would be the greatest. The SCAQMD
recommends that a local CO hot spot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the
following criteria: 1) the intersection is at LOS D or worse and where the project increases the
volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or 2) the project degrades LOS at an intersection from C to D.
Using the CALINE4 model, a potential CO hot spot was analyzed at the intersection provided in
Table 3. This intersection was chosen because it is projected to operate at LOS E or worse prior to
the implementation of mitigation. There are several inputs to the CALINE4 model. One input is the
traffic volumes, which is from the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed
project. The traffic volumes with the proposed project were used for the buildout scenario, as well as
emission factors generated using the EMFAC2007 model for the year 2015.
As provided in Table 3, the estimated 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations at buildout in
combination with background concentrations are below the State and federal standards. No CO hot
spots are anticipated due to emissions generated by project-related traffic in combination with other
anticipated development in the area. Thus, the mobile emissions of CO from the proposed project are
not anticipated to contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO.
Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation during operations.
Table 3: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Estimated CO Concentration
(ppm)
Intersection Peak Hour 1 Hour 8 hour
Significant
Impact?
(2) Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress
Street
PM 5.4 3.8 No
Notes:
The 1 hour concentration is the CALINE4 output (see Appendix A for model output) plus the 1 hour background
concentration of 4.91 ppm (calculated by dividing the Anaheim-Pampas Lane ambient monitoring station 8-hour
measurement of 3.44 ppm by 0.7 (persistence factor)).
The 8-hour project increment was calculated by multiplying the 1 hour CALINE4 output by 0.7 (persistence factor), then
adding the 8 hour background concentration of 3.44 ppm (from the Anaheim-Pampas Lane ambient monitoring station).
A significant impact would occur if the estimated CO concentration is over the 1-hour state standard of 20 ppm or the 8-
hour State/federal standard of 9 ppm.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The non-attainment pollutants of concern
for this section are ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5. Ozone is not emitted directly into the
air, but is a regional pollutant formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone
precursors, VOC and NOX, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
Therefore, the SCAQMD does not have a recommended ozone threshold, but has regional thresholds
of significance for project-emitted NOX and VOC.
The SCAQMD has determined that a project-level exceedance of the thresholds provided in Table 4
would have significant adverse impact on the air quality in the Air Basin by jeopardizing the Basin’s
attainment of the federal standards. Therefore, projects within the Air Basin with construction or
operational emissions in excess of any of the thresholds provided in Table 4 are considered to have a
significant regional air quality impact.
Table 4: SCAQMD Mass Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Related (lbs/day) Operational Related (lbs/day)
Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) 75 55
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) 100 55
CO 550 550
Sulfur oxides (SOX) 150 150
PM10 (Exhaust) 150 150
PM2.5 (Exhaust) 55 55
Notes:
lbs/day = pounds per day
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2011a.
Construction Analysis
Table 5 summarizes construction-related emissions (without mitigation). For the assumptions used in
generating the emissions, please refer to Section 3b). The information provided in Table 5 indicates
that the SCAQMD regional emission thresholds for VOC could potentially be exceeded during the
architectural coatings phase. Therefore, without mitigation, the construction emissions are considered
to have a potentially significant regional impact.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition Onsite 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.74 3.50
Demolition Offsite 0.44 3.42 3.05 0.00 3.05 0.18
Total Demolition 9.30 74.13 45.60 0.07 6.79 3.68
Site Prep Onsite 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 7.45 5.87
Site Prep Offsite 2.02 18.82 12.31 0.03 16.21 0.91
Total Site Prep 11.92 98.81 57.66 0.10 23.66 6.78
Grading Onsite 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 4.01 3.38
Grading Offsite 0.11 0.12 1.11 0.00 0.24 0.02
Total Grading 6.47 48.93 32.11 0.05 4.25 3.40
Building Onsite 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28
Building Offsite 2.85 12.56 25.77 0.05 4.89 0.69
Total Building 8.02 47.22 49.22 0.09 7.17 2.97
Paving Onsite 4.06 24.85 16.79 0.03 2.07 2.07
Paving Offsite 0.14 0.14 1.36 0.00 0.32 0.02
Total Paving 4.20 24.99 18.15 0.03 2.39 2.09
Architectural Coating Onsite 380.64 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24
Architectural Coating Offsite 0.34 0.35 3.40 0.01 0.79 0.06
Total Arch 380.98 3.12 5.32 0.01 1.03 0.30
Maximum Daily Emissions 380.98 98.81 57.66 0.10 23.66 6.78
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes No No No No No
Notes:
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the
grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not
summed.
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Appendix A: CalEEMod Output.
Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011a.
Mitigation to reduce the VOC content of interior and exterior applications, as well as phasing to
reduce the amount of daily coatings applied, would reduce emissions to less than significant.
Application of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would substantially reduce VOC emissions from
onsite architectural coatings. Mitigated construction emissions are provided in Table 6. Therefore,
with incorporation of Mitigation Measures, construction emissions would have a less than significant
regional impact.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated)
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Onsite 71.89 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24
Architectural Coating Offsite 0.34 0.35 3.40 0.01 0.79 0.06
Maximum Daily Emissions 72.23 3.12 5.32 0.01 1.03 0.30
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Notes:
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the
grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not
summed.
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012 (Appendix A).
Operational Analysis
Operational emissions from sources generated both onsite and offsite as derived from CalEEMod are
provided in Table 7 for the summer season. CalEEMod inputs included the land uses provided in
Section 1.3, Project Description, for the year 2015. As provided in Table 7, the operational emissions
do not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and would generate a less than significant regional
impact.
Table 7: Operational Emissions
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 11.60 0.22 18.74 0.00 0.37 0.36
Energy 0.08 0.68 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile 12.49 30.28 121.85 0.23 25.13 2.22
Total 24.17 31.18 140.88 0.23 25.55 2.63
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Notes:
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012 (Appendix A).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of asbestos, localized fugitive PM10, localized criteria pollutant
concentrations, carbon monoxide, diesel particulate matter, or hazardous pollutants, as discussed
below.
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting
respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive
receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences,
hospitals, or convalescent facilities. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the
definition because employees do not typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing
the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon
monoxide), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors for those
purposes.
The closest sensitive receptors are the existing residences located north of the project site. In
addition, the proposed project would contain new sensitive receptors.
Asbestos
Asbestos is a fibrous mineral which is both naturally occurring in ultramafic rock (a rock type
commonly found in California), and used as a processed component of building materials. Because
asbestos has been proven to cause a number of disabling and fatal diseases, such as asbestosis and
lung cancer, it is strictly regulated either based on its natural widespread occurrence, or in its use as a
building material. The potential source of asbestos exposure for the proposed project is the
demolition of the existing structure.
The proposed project would involve some demolition activities. Thus, the proposed project is
required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation
Activities). Specifically, SCAQMD Rule 1403 requires that a survey be completed for every
structure that would be demolished to determine if the facility contains Regulated Asbestos
Containing Material. In addition, a notification must be made to the SCAQMD at least 10 working
days prior to commencement of demolition/renovation activities. The SCAQMD provides a form to
use for notification. The purpose of the form is to verify compliance with or exemption from the
asbestos notification requirements set forth by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and SCAQMD Rule 1403 require that a
thorough inspection for asbestos be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or
renovated. Inspections must include the collection and microscopic analysis of samples of all
materials that might contain asbestos. Consultants who perform inspections must be certified by Cal-
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
OSHA, must have taken and passed an EPA-approved building course, and provide a written report
containing the inspection results. If Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials are present, the
applicant must follow the requirements for removal, disposal and administrative requirements
contained in SCAQMD Rule 1403. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would reduce
the potential for exposure to asbestos containing material to less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide
The screening and analysis for the proposed project’s potential to contribute to a localized exceedance
of State or federal CO standards is contained in Section 3b). As previously discussed, the proposed
project would not significantly contribute to a local violation of the carbon monoxide standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to exposure of sensitive receptors
to unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide.
Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
The analysis for the proposed project’s potential to contribute to a localized exceedance of State or
federal NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 standards is contained in Section 3b). As previously discussed, the
proposed project would not significantly contribute to a local violation of the standards. Therefore,
the proposed project would not significantly contribute to exposure of sensitive receptors to
unacceptable levels of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Two scenarios have the potential for exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs).
The first occurs when a project includes a new or modified source of TACs and would be located near
an existing or proposed sensitive receptor. The second scenario involves a residential or other
sensitive receptor development locating near an existing or planned source of TACs. The proposed
project would be considered a sensitive receptor. However, no significant sources of TACs are
located near the project site. The proposed project would generate diesel exhaust, a source of diesel
particulate matter, during project construction, and during operation from truck traffic. However, the
proposed project would not create a significant impact from project construction, and the project is
not considered a “source” site for TACs from project operation, as described below.
Project Construction
Equipment used during construction of the proposed project would emit diesel particulate matter,
which is a carcinogen. However, the diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature.
Determination of risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70-year exposure time.
Guidance published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Risk
Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, does not include guidance for health risks from
construction projects addressed in CEQA; risks near construction projects are expected to be included
later when the toxic emissions from construction activities are better understood. Additionally, the
nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 50 feet from the project site. Therefore,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate
matter would be considered less than significant.
Project Operations
The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that would “help keep
California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby
sources of air pollution,” including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and
certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as follows.
• Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet
of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles
per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic
densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. Roads
assessed in the traffic study are not anticipated to exceed a volume of 30,000 vehicles per day
in the future with project scenario. The highest design capacity of adjacent urban roadways is
56,300 (major arterials). Therefore, adjacent roadways would not generate a significant TACs
impact to the proposed project.
• Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive land uses
within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. There are no distribution centers within one-quarter
mile of the project site.
• Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a
large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A
50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. There are no fueling
stations within 300 feet of the project site.
• Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive land uses
within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with
two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or
more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. There are no dry
cleaning facilities within 300 feet of the project site.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant TACs impact to
sensitive receptors.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health
hazard. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one
person may be acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected
and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. Known as odor fatigue, a person can
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 51
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity
of the odor.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis
shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the
California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus
would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are
objectionable to some. However, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site, and thus,
should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors.
Typical sources of objectionable odors include agricultural operations (e.g., dairies, feedlots, etc.),
landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. The
proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
However, the proposed project would involve the construction of new sensitive receptors. There are
no typical sources of objectionable odors located within one mile of the project site. Therefore,
impacts associated with the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area and consists of a
vacant 25,000 sq ft commercial building, an associated parking lot, and ornamental trees and
landscaping. In its existing condition, the ornamental vegetation does not constitute natural, native
habitat. The highly disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area creates an
unsuitable environment for any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species. Due to the previous development of the project site and the complete lack of native
habitat, sensitive plant or wildlife species are not expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, no
impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special status species 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occurs 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 contains no
river, stream, or similar natural drainages indicative of riparian habitats, and due to the highly
disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area, no rare plant communities or
plant communities that provide habitat for sensitive species occur on the project site. Therefore, no
impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. According to United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), wetlands are lands
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes, (2) the
substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with
water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. None of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 53
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
these attributes are found on the project site, and as such, wetlands do not occur on the site.
Therefore, no impacts associated with federally protected wetlands would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. Due to the highly
disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area, no habitat that could
potentially support significant wildlife species occurs adjacent to the project site, and as such, the site
is not currently used as a wildlife corridor.
Moreover, as a result of both the existing development and the lack of suitable habitat found
throughout the surrounding project area, the project site does not presently serve as a wildlife nursery
site. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildlife corridors and nursery sites would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 13.12 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code addresses the
protection, maintenance, removal, and replacement of street trees located within the City’s right-of-
way. While approximately 40 landscape trees would be removed from around the existing onsite
buildings and parking lots, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to affect street trees
located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site along Anaheim
Boulevard and the southern boundary along Lincoln Avenue. Any street tree necessitating removal
would be removed only after consultation with the Director of Community Services or his or her
designee, as outlined in Chapter 13.12 of the City’s Municipal Code. Any street tree requiring
removal would be replaced according with Section 13.12.060, Street Tree Replacement Plan, of the
Municipal Code. By following the existing City regulations contained with Chapter 13.12, the
proposed project would comply with the City’s street tree policy and associated ordinances.
Therefore, impacts associated with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be
less than significant.
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 the boundary of any Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan. According
to the City of Anaheim 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
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Conservation Plan (NCCP). This portion of the City is located approximately five miles east of the
project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with conflicts with conservation plans would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 55
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
5. Cultural Resources
The following is based in part on the April 2, 2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared
for the proposed project by Michael Brandman Associates (Appendix B).
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing Onsite Building
The subject property, the AT&T building, located at 200 N. Lemon Avenue was constructed circa
1956. The property was assessed for historic and architectural significance by Architectural Historian
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A., in March 2012. Ms. Crawford meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Architectural Historian.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix B) determined that the existing onsite
building is not located in a cohesive neighborhood and is not otherwise associated with any important
historical or cultural events or individuals. Design of the building was the work of a master
architectural firm, Parkinson and Parkinson. The building, however, is not a good example of
Parkinson and Parkinson overall body of work. It is not of a significant design and does not embody
characteristics of a significant type, period, or method of construction. The property also does not
have the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
The building is not a historic property under Section 106 of the Nation Historic Preservation Act,
because it is not eligible for any of the National Register Criterion. The recommended California
Historical Resource Status Code for the building was determined to be 6Z: Determined ineligible for
National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey evaluation.
Anaheim Colony Historic District
The proposed project would replace the existing onsite building with a mixed use residential and
retail development. The project site is located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District, which
includes buildings already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as structures that
have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, but have not been formally
designated at this time.
One National Register-listed property, the Samuel Kraemer Building (circa 1925), a former bank
building, is located on Claudina Street within the viewshed of the project site. The proposed design
of the Uptown Village project has borrowed stylistic elements from this historic building, creating a
compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of the complex borrows window
and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in the Anaheim Colony Historic
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
District, displaying a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the neighborhood. In addition, a
small Victorian era church is located on the corner of Claudina Street and Cypress Street within the
viewshed of the project site. The church has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National
Register, but has not been formally designated at this time. The Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment determined that the church, the Samuel Kraemer Building, or any others historic or
potentially historic property in the surrounding area would be affected by the proposed project.
The neighborhood has undergone steady change for the last one-hundred years as the early Anaheim
Colony community was developed from its original farming/agricultural origins to a more settled
urban area. During the 1910s and 1920s, numerous one- and two-story Craftsman-style homes were
built, new businesses were constructed to serve the growing community, and gradually the farms and
orchards were absorbed into the urban landscape. By 1925, the five-story Samuel Kraemer Building
had been constructed as one of the first “high-rise” commercial buildings in Anaheim. The building
has been a prominent landmark in the city since its construction.
Other mid- and high-rise buildings followed in the subsequent decades while the City of Anaheim’s
core business area expanded, and more residential buildings in the popular styles of the succeeding
decades—Spanish Eclectic, Tudor Revival, Modern Minimal Traditional, Modern Ranch, and other
variants—were constructed to house the City’s growing population. During the last fifty years, with
the construction of Disneyland and various sports/entertainment venues, the City’s building stock was
altered by the addition of new modern style structures. The project area has changed substantially as
numerous residences were removed over the decades to accommodate new commercial and light
industrial uses. The construction of the AT&T buildings on N. Lemon Avenue serve as good
examples of the removal of the early homes from the early decades of the twentieth century to
accommodate new development during the 1950s and early 1960s.
This process has continued as strip malls, large commercial centers, a new City Hall, new banks, and
a wide range of commercial and business uses have changed the viewscape substantially over the last
four decades. The entire setting has been considerably altered with the removal of many of the
historic elements and their replacement with modern style commercial and/or multifamily residential
buildings. The scale of the area has also been altered by the introduction of large-scale buildings with
substantive mass and expansive footprints on the urban landscape.
The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the existing historic elements found in the
surrounding area and to respect the area’s historical heritage. The inclusion of the proposed project in
the neighborhood would not have a significant impact on the historic buildings within the viewshed
due to the extensive alterations that have already substantially altered the viewshed. The changes in
mass and scale already present in the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts associated with both the existing onsite AT& T buildings and the surrounding
Anaheim Colony Historic District would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 57
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Project Site
In August 2012, a blog post by O.C. History Roundup regarding Anaheim’s Chinatown stated that the
project site is located in an area that was previously occupied by Chinatown. Based on a review of
historical records including inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the
California Register of Historical Resources (CR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory
(HRI), and archival maps for the County and the City, there was no evidence of previously
documented local historical resources on the project site.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on an archaeological resources
records search, there are no previously recorded prehistoric sites that are located within 0.5 mile from
the project site. In addition, a pedestrian field survey by an MBA archaeologist found no evidence of
prehistoric resources. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR prepared in 2004, there
was one substantial prehistoric cultural resource site (CA-Ora-303) that was recorded in 1970 and
listed a collection of small rock shelters adjacent to SR-91. The artifact assemblage found at this site
was comprised of manos, hammerstones, choppers, lithic flakes, and some faunal bone. In general,
archaeological sites 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 its Sphere of Influence. The
project site is located outside of the Hill and Canyon Area of the City of Anaheim.
Based on a field survey and records search, the project site has been previously disturbed as a result
of previous development and is unlikely that construction activities would unearth any previously
unknown buried archaeological resources. However, it is always possible that grading, excavation,
and other similar ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project could
potentially uncover buried archaeological resources. To avoid significant impacts, Mitigation
Measures CR-1 through CR-4 shall be implemented in the event that buried cultural resources are
discovered during construction activities.
MM CR-1 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction,
operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further
study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency
on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources,
including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural resources could consist
of, but are not limited to, stone artifacts, bone, wood, shell, or features, including
hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered
resources found during construction within the Project Area should be recorded on
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
MM CR-2 If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under
§15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the
monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for
significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in
green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
MM CR-3 No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency
approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts
recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution
approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation
to allow future scientific study.
MM CR-4 In addition, reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the
property will be taken and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native
American tribes with concerns about the property, as well as the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be notified within 48 hours in compliance with 36
CFR 800.13(b)(3).
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. 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 ground-disturbing activities. While the sites are important
indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important since they may contain important
fossils. Because most of the City of Anaheim is built out, there are few areas containing rock
outcroppings. The Hill and Canyon Area contains sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Late
Cretaceous to Middle Miocene. The oldest sedimentary rocks belong to the upper Cretaceous Holz
Shale and the Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation. Other formations of potential
paleontological importance in the area include the Silverado, Santiago, Sespe, and Topanga
Formations. The age of these formations places them in an important time in the evolutionary history
of both terrestrial vertebrate mammals and marine invertebrate species. For this reason, these
formations are considered to have moderate or high paleontological sensitivity.
The project site is located outside of the Hill and Canyon Area of the City of Anaheim and away from
these formations. The project site has been previously disturbed as a result of previous development.
However, the project site is within the ancient floodplain of the Santa Ana River and Pleistocene
deposits can potentially be encountered at depth. As such, impacts to significant paleontological
resources in undisturbed surface or subsurface Pleistocene sediments is considered moderate. To
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 59
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
avoid significant impacts Mitigation Measures CR-5 through CR-8 shall be implemented during the
construction phase of the proposed project.
MM CR-5 Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic
resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor is required under limited conditions.
Monitoring must take place once 6 feet of modern grade has been reached during any
earthmoving work. The mitigation measures must be discussed with the Proponent
and/or his contracted representatives during a pre-grade meeting attended by City
staff. Should the City-approved Paleontologist determine that potential impacts to
fossil resources have been reduced to “low” as a result of the monitoring efforts, the
Paleontologist may cease the monitoring program before earthmoving has concluded.
A monitoring report must be generated and submitted to City staff within one month
after monitoring has concluded.
Based upon the results of this review, areas of concern include any and all previously
undisturbed sediments of Pleistocene Older alluvium present within the boundaries of
the Project Area. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils, as
they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors
must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the
potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and
examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain
fossil resources.
MM CR-6 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates is required. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are
essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources.
MM CR-7 Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum
repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage is required. These
procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA
compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand
prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to
significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an
established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.
MM CR-8 Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens
is required. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead
Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to
mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not located on or adjacent
to any known burial ground or cemetery. Because the project site has been previously disturbed as a
result of previous development, it is unlikely that construction activities would unearth any previously
unknown buried human remains. However, although unlikely, it is always possible that grading,
excavation, and other similar ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project
could potentially uncover buried human remains. To avoid significant impacts, Mitigation Measure
CR-9 shall be implemented in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains during construction activities.
MM CR-9 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,
California State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resource Code (PRC)
§5097.98. All applicable provisions of the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43
CFR 10 shall also apply.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 61
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
6. Geology and Soils
The following is based in part on the October 24, 2011 Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
prepared for the proposed project by Leighton and Associates (Appendix C).
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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
(Appendix C), there are no known active or potentially active faults traversing the project site and the
site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal
seismic hazard that could affect the project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake
occurring along one of several major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. The
closest mapped active faults that could affect the project site are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust,
Whittier, San Joaquin Blind Thrust, Newport-Inglewood (Los Angeles Basin), and San Jose faults,
which are located approximately 10, 12, 16, 19, and 23 kilometers, respectively, from the site. Other
known regional active faults that could affect the project site include the Chino-Central Avenue
(Elsinore) and Elsinore (Glen-Ivy) fault. The San Andreas Fault System, which is the largest active
fault in California, is approximately 63 kilometers northeast of the project site. As required by the
current California Building Code, the proposed project would incorporate all applicable seismic
design criteria to avoid significant impacts resulting from seismic events. Therefore, impacts
associated with earthquake fault rupture would be less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the principal seismic hazard that could
affect the project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several
major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. The closest mapped active faults that
could affect the project site are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier, San Joaquin Blind Thrust,
Newport-Inglewood (Los Angeles Basin), and San Jose faults, which are located approximately 10,
12, 16, 19, and 23 kilometers, respectively, from the project site. The proposed project would comply
with all applicable provisions regarding earthquake safety for new construction as contained within
the current California Building Code and the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, including the
following:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
City of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 15.07, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings
Promotes public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may
result from the effects of earthquakes on unreinforced masonry bearing wall
buildings.
Section 15.03, Building Standard Codes
Prescribes specific regulations for erecting, construction, enlargement, alteration,
repair, improving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use,
height, and area of buildings and structures.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Building Code
Contains various specific provisions for earthquake safety (Section 15.03, Building
Standard Codes, of the Anaheim Municipal Code adopts the provisions of the
California Building Code).
The proposed project would be required to meet all applicable aforementioned building requirements,
which are anticipated to reduce potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore,
impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
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 occurs when three general conditions exist:
1) Shallow groundwater
2) Low density, fine, clean sandy soils
3) High-intensity ground motion
The project site is not located within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Due to absence of shallow
groundwater, potential for liquefaction is considered low and not a significant design consideration.
Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant impact.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. As detailed in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix C), the project
site and surrounding area lack significant ground slopes. Thus, the potential for seismically-induced
onsite landslides is considered low and not a significant concern. Moreover, according to the City of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 63
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area susceptible to
earthquake-induced landslides. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. 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. Since the proposed project would disturb one or
more acres of soil, 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 the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction
General Permit requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
would include project construction features designed in part to prevent erosion, known as Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Per Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (see Section 3.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality), these erosion prevention efforts would include physical features such as fiber rolls,
street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. Incorporation
of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 during the construction phase would ensure that sufficient numbers of
erosion control BMPs are implemented to reduce potential impacts related to erosion.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would primarily contain impervious surfaces that
will prevent erosion, as impervious surfaces are generally not susceptible to the effects of wind and
water erosion. The portions of the project site that consist of pervious surfaces would be landscaped,
which will prevent substantial erosion from occurring. Therefore, impacts associated with erosion
during operational activities would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously described, the project site is not located within a
mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Due to absence of shallow groundwater, potential for liquefaction
is considered low and not a significant design consideration.
Additionally, liquefaction may also 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, if 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.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
No significant ground slopes exist on the project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, the potential
for seismically-induced onsite 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
(Appendix G), laboratory testing of one representative bulk sample within the upper 5 feet of the
existing grade indicates very low expansion potential (per ASTM D 4829) with tested Expansion
Index value of 5. Based on observations during field exploration and laboratory test results,
subsurface soils at shallow depths are anticipated to have very low expansion potential. Therefore,
impacts associated with expansive soil would be less than significant.
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?
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.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 65
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
7. 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. The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended
significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft
local agency threshold”); however, the SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds as of the
date of this IS/MND (SCAQMD 2010). The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered
approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption
under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas
reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan,
it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent
with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over
30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under
one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
- All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
- Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400
MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
- Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined
- Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
- Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans;
- Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for
plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
To determine whether the proposed project is significant, this project utilizes the SCAQMD draft
local agency tiered threshold. The threshold is as follows:
• Tier 1: The Project is not exempt under CEQA; go to Tier 2.
• Tier 2: There is no greenhouse gas reduction plan applicable to the Project; go to Tier 3.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Tier 3: Project greenhouse gas emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTCO2e per
year.
• Tier 4, option 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual by 28.4 percent.
The California 2020 emissions target is 427 MMTCO2e and the 2020 baseline is 596
MMTCO2e (California Air Resources Board 2011b). Therefore, a 28.4 percent reduction is
required to reduce emissions to the target (see analysis below).
• Tier 4, option 3: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year.
For purposes of the greenhouse gas significance threshold, Business-as-Usual is defined as pre-AB
32. Business-as-Usual greenhouse gas emissions refer to emissions using protocol and emission
factors from the period of 2004-2006 (prior to the adoption of Assembly Bill 32 and related
greenhouse gas regulations) and does not take into account project design features or mitigation
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ARB’s Scoping Plan indicates that Business-as-Usual
is “projected emissions in 2020 without any greenhouse gas reduction measures (Business-as-Usual
case). The 2020 Business-as-Usual forecast does not take any credit for reductions from measures
included in this Plan, including the Pavley greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, full
implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard beyond current levels of renewable energy, or
the solar measures” (ARB 2008).
Project Emissions Inventory
This analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The proposed
project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction and operation, including
several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Construction
The proposed project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources and direct
sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). For assumptions
used in estimating these emissions, please refer to the Section 3.3, Air Quality. Greenhouse gas
emissions from construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Appendix A. . The
greenhouse gas emissions from all phases of construction would equal 1,143.53 MTCO2e. Amortized
over 30 years, construction emissions would equal 38.12 MTCO2e per year.
Operation
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the life of the proposed project. The
operational emissions for the proposed project are shown in Table 8. For the assumptions and
descriptions for the emission sources, please refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality. As shown in Table 8,
the main source of operational greenhouse gases are from mobile emissions. The ‘with reductions’
calculations used a combination of CalEEMod project design feature reductions and mitigation
measures. In addition, URBEMIS2007 was used in combination with the Bay Area Air Quality
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 67
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Management District’s BGM model to determine the percent reduction in mobile emissions
attributable to implementation of the State’s Pavley Standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Although CalEEMod reportedly accounts for reductions from Pavley Standards starting in 2012, the
mobile emissions output from CalEEMod is higher in year 2020 than the URBEMIS model’s output,
indicating the CalEEMod output does not account for Pavley reductions. Regulatory reductions were
applied prior to applying project design reductions to avoid over-counting emission reductions.
As shown in Table 8, Business-as-Usual emissions would result in nearly 4,500 MTCO2e per year in
2020. However, implementation of State regulation, accounting for project design features and
locational aspects that reduce emissions, and application of regulatory standards (i.e., installation of
low flow bathroom faucet, low flow kitchen faucet, low flow toilet, and low flow shower) would
result in a 33-percent reduction in emissions from the Business-as-Usual scenario. Therefore, the
proposed project’s emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s draft percent-reduction threshold.
Table 8: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (2020)
Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Source Business as
Usual With Reductions Reductions (%)
Area 166 149 10%
Energy 797 797 0%
Mobile 3,249 2,459 44%
Waste 55 45 18%
Water 217 183 16%
Subtotal - Operation 4,484 2,987 33.4%
Subtotal - Construction
(averaged over 30 years)
38.12 38.12 —
Total 4,522 3,025 33.1%
Threshold -- -- 28.4%
Does project exceed threshold? -- -- No
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Source of business as usual emissions: CalEEMod, for the year 2020 (Appendix A).
Source of with reductions emissions:
- Mobile: CalEEMod, for the year 2020 (Appendix A)
- URBEMIS and BGM output are provided in Appendix A, a 24.3 percent reduction applied for Pavley and Low
Carbon Fuel Standard. An additional 26 percent was then applied per the CalEEMod output containing the
“mitigated” scenario with project design features incorporated
- Waste reduction of 17.6 percent calculated by assuming 1.5 MMTCO2e reductions in California (from California Air
Resources Board 2011b) off of 8.5 MMTCO2e 2020 emissions (from California Air Resources Board 2010c).
- Indoor water use reductions based on default percent reductions attributable to regulatory standards, as contained
within CalEEMod. Water-Efficient irrigation system reduction also default percent reduction attributable to
regulatory standards. See Appendix A.
Project design and locational features incorporated with the proposed project include:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Increased Density over the existing use by providing multi-family residential and
commercial/retail uses;
• Increased Diversity, as the proposed project would include a diversity of multi-family
residential units and commercial/retail uses;
• Improved Pedestrian Network on the project site and connecting off-site with the
implementation of the internal walkways between residential and retail uses, as well as
connection to peripheral sidewalks.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is currently no local or regional greenhouse gas reduction plan
applicable to the proposed project. The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32
focuses on reducing greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the
requirements in AB 32, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008,
which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious
but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30-percent
from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020. Although the percent reduction is
calculated as a statewide reduction, and relies on varying levels of reductions from multiple emissions
sectors and sources, the proposed project would achieve a greater than 30 percent reduction.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the general emission reduction goal of
ARB’s Scoping Plan following the incorporation of project design features and regulatory
requirements identified above.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 69
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following is based in part on a August 1, 2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
prepared for the proposed project by Apex Companies, LLC; a October 26, 2007 Phase II ESA
prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc.; and a November 8, 2011 Revised Voluntary Remediation
Action Plan. All of these resources can be found in Appendix D.
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 that could potentially cause harm
during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive,
an irritant or strong sensitizer. 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 probable
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 would involve the use, transport, and/or disposal of relatively small quantities
of commonly used but potentially hazardous materials during construction and operation activities.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
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 manufacturers’ guidelines, as well as according to all
applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials.
Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials
during project construction would be less than significant.
Project Operation
Operation of residential and commercial uses such as those 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 manufacturers’ 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.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Household cleaners, many of which are considered household hazard waste (HHW), would likely be
used on the project site during operation of the proposed project. HHW falls under the larger heading
of “Common Waste” as defined by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When
improperly used, stored, or disposed of, these materials could potentially pose a threat to both humans
and the environment. However, using these materials according to manufacturers’ guidelines, as well
as according to all applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous
materials, would reduce associated risk. Specifically, compliance with the mandatory obligations
contained in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Chapter 6.95 of the
California Health and Safety Code would result in less than significant impacts to both humans and
the environment. 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 manufactures’ 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 condition would be less than significant.
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. There are two private schools located within one-quarter mile of the
project site:
• Saint Catherine’s Academy (215 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, 92805): Located
approximately 0.23 miles west of the project site.
• Montessori Learning Center (331 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, 92805): Located
approximately 0.24 miles northwest of the project site.
Despite the presence of these schools, 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 according to manufactures’ guidelines, as well as according to all
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 71
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Due to
the nature of the proposed project, less than significant impacts are anticipated due to the residential
and commercial nature of the project. 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.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Apex Companies, LLC
(Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the site of the proposed Heritage School comprises
the city block immediately north of the project site. This property, occupied by residences, churches,
and automotive repair facilities, is listed on the Envirostor database. The Envirostor database
includes facilities investigated by the State of California and includes Superfund, military, and
proposed school facilities. At this time, this property is being evaluated by the California Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for suitability as a possible school location. The listing does not
pertain to known releases or remedial activities. Evaluation of property by the DTSC does not
necessarily mean that the subject property is contaminated, only that the DTSC is investigating the
property to validate its suitability as a possible location for a school. Thus, inclusion of this property
on the Envirostor database does not constitute a recognized environmental concern (REC).
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase I ESA (Appendix D,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the project site is identified on several environmental databases,
including the Haznet and RCRA databases for generation of hazardous waste. However, no
violations were ever reported. The project site is also identified on several underground storage tank
(UST) databases. A 1,000-gallon diesel UST was installed at the project site in 1970, removed in
1992, and granted regulatory closure in 1993. A 2007 Geophysical Survey and Site Investigation
Report did not detect any historical USTs at the project site. Records indicating removal of USTs
associated with the former gasoline station use on the southwestern portion of the project site were
not found. Additionally, the project site is identified on the Orange County Industrial Site database
for lead compounds.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database identifies the project site as a large
and small quantity hazardous waste generator. Specific wastes generated were not reported, and no
violations were ever reported. In this particular case, inclusion on the RCRA database does not
constitute a REC.
Facility and Manifest database (HAZNET) identifies the project site as having recorded waste
manifest documentation for multiple hazardous wastes generated at the site. The waste materials
included alkaline solution, tank bottom waste, waste oil, aqueous solution, asbestos, and organic
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
solids. No violations were ever reported regarding the historic hazardous waste handling and disposal
operations at the project site. In this particular case, inclusion on the HAZNET database does not
constitute a REC.
The project site is identified on several underground storage tank (UST) databases, including the
Facility Inventory Database (FID), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
(SWEEPS), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) UST database, SWRCB Historical
UST databases, and EDR Historical Auto Stations Database. According to the SWRCB Historical
UST database, one diesel UST was installed in 1970. According to the SWEEPS database, a 1,000-
gallon UST containing “gasohol” was reported. The project site is listed on the EDR Historical Auto
Service Stations database as a gasoline station in 1925 and 1936. No additional information
regarding these listings was provided. The potential for environmental impact associated with the
historical presence of USTs and use of petroleum at the project site is explored in the multiple
historical site-specific environmental investigation reports obtained by Apex Companies, LLC and
summarized in greater detail in the Phase I ESA (Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
As indicated on page 6 of the Environmental Database Search Report (Appendix D, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Phase I ESA’s Appendix 4), the project site does not appear on any sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA, however, recommended
additional investigation be performed adjacent to the existing emergency backup generator and diesel
AST, as well as in the areas of concern as identified in 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. was contracted by AT&T, the former owner of the project site, to perform
a soil boring investigation at the property as part of a Phase II ESA (Appendix D, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials). The primary goal of the investigation was to identify whether any potential
contamination concerns existed associated with current and historic property usages. Eleven soil
samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) by EPA method 8015M
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 8260B. The nine samples collected from
the “gas & oil,” “auto washing,” and “auto painting,” areas were further analyzed for TPH-gasoline
(TPH-G) by EPA method 8015M; petroleum oil and grease (POG) by EPA method 5520; and for the
LUFT 5 metals cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc by EPA method 601 0C.
All detected target constituents were compared to EPA Region 9 residential preliminary remediation
goals (PRGs). The PRG levels are considered to be health protective of human exposures and do not
consider impact to groundwater or address ecological concerns.
The concentration of total lead slightly exceeded the California-modified PRG of 200 mg/kg for
residential soils in one soil sample (150 mg/kg in sample 89-4). However, the concentration was well
below the PRG of 800 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soils. No other PRGs were exceeded.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 73
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Elevated concentrations of TOG and TPH-D were also detected in select soil samples. These
constituents lack specific Region 9 PRGs. Based on the overall depth to groundwater and lack of any
volatile constituents, these concentrations would not pose a significant risk to humans or the
environment.
APEX Companies, LLC prepared a Revised Voluntary Remediation Action Plan (Appendix D,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials) for the project site, which was reviewed and found acceptable by
the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Environmental Health Department provided
considerations outlined in their November 16, 2011 letter (Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials) are addressed. As detailed in the Remediation Action Plan, the Applicant proposes the
Voluntary Remedial Action prior to redevelopment of the currently unoccupied project site. The
extensive historical investigations performed by ERM and Shaw Environmental, Inc., as summarized
in the Remediation Action Plan, have documented that the contaminant of concern (COC) for the
project site is lead.
Of the 57 soil samples collected from soils located more than 4 feet below surface, the single highest
detection of lead was 75.4 mg/kg at 6 feet bgs at B23. The average concentration of lead in soil in the
57 soil samples collected from below 4 feet bgs is 12.58 mg/kg. This data supports the conclusion
that lead contamination at the project site is limited to shallow soils 4 feet or less bgs and that no
remediation is required for soils greater than 4 feet bgs.
Only three samples (boring locations ERM SB-20, SB-25, and SB-32) of the 219 soil samples
collected from the top 4 feet across the project site reported lead concentration in excess of 1,000
mg/kg, and are therefore considered a hazardous waste pursuant to California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 22. At each of these locations, the high concentration of lead was only detected in a very
small zone.
Apex Companies, LLC conducted a statistical analysis to determine the upper confidence limit (UCL)
of the representative concentration of lead in soil within the top 4 feet at the project site. Apex
Companies, LLC used the Pro- UCL statistical software developed by the EPA. The output from the
Pro-UCL program reports that following removal of the three shallow hot spots eliciting hazardous
waste levels of lead, the remaining average lead concentration in soils within the top 4 feet of surface
is 35.8 mg/kg and the 97.5-percent upper confidence limit (UCL) is 66.19 mg/kg. This is less than
the proposed conservative cleanup objective of 80 mg/kg for lead. Although no further remediation,
excavation, or disposal is required following removal of the three shallow hot spots, the most
conservative screening level for residential uses would still be achieved. Per the Remedial Action
Plan, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a through HAZ-1d are recommended to reduce impacts related to
potentially contaminated and hazardous onsite soils to less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MM HAZ-1a Prior to the issuance of a building permit, onsite soil classified as hazardous waste in
California by virtue of having greater than 1,000 mg/kg total lead concentration shall
be evaluated and disposed at a State approved disposal site.
MM HAZ-1b Prior to the issuance of a building permit, shallow soils from the historical industrial
use located in the southeast and southwest portions of the project site (with the
highest density of sampling locations documenting lead between 80 mg/kg and 1,000
mg/kg) shall be relocated to underneath the footprint of the future parking structure.
MM HAZ-1c Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the soils with lead concentration below 80
mg/kg shall be re-graded and compacted in the top 5 to 7 feet bgs.
MM HAZ-1d Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sampling under the footprint of new
residential area(s) shall be conducted to confirm and document that no residual soil
with lead in excess of 80 mg/kg is located under the foundation of the proposed
building locations.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a through HAZ-1d as derived from
the Remediation Action Plan, impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than
significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is
located approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, John Wayne Airport is
located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impacts
associated with public use airports would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. The City of
Anaheim contains only heliports and helistops and does not contain any airstrips (AirNav 2012).
Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrips would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 75
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project includes vehicular and emergency vehicle ingress and egress from
the driveway located along Cypress Street and from the driveway located along Lemon Street.
Compliance with City of Anaheim Fire Department codes, regulations, and conditions would ensure
that the proposed project would not physically interfere with or impair implementation of an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts associated with
emergency response or evacuation plans would occur.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The project site is located within an established urban area. As such, the project site and
the surrounding area are not prone to wildland fires. Per Figure S-5 (Fire Protection Areas) of the
City of Anaheim General Plan, the project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone or in a Special Protection Area. The project site is surrounded by established urban
development and is located approximately 4.75 miles west of the nearest Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildland fires would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
The following is based in part on a February 29, 2012 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the proposed project by the project engineer, KHR Associates (Appendix E, Hydrology),
as well as an additional letter report authored by the project engineer (Appendix I, Utilities and
Service Systems).
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would include grading,
excavation, and other earthmoving activities that have the potential to cause erosion effects 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 administer in the project
area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board, 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, since the proposed project would disturb one or more acres of soil, 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 the 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(s)
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 a SWPPP. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 during the
construction phase would ensure that a sufficient number of erosion control BMPs are implemented
to reduce potential impacts related to erosion.
MM HYD-1 Per the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 77
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
0009-DWQ), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed
project shall be prepared and include a sufficient number of erosion control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented during the construction phase to
ensure that potential erosion issues are adequately addressed. BMPs shall include the
following, or similar, efforts: fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale
barriers, and storm drain inlet protection.
The development, implementation, and participation with both the NPDES General Permit and the
Construction General Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction
effects on water quality to acceptable levels. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure
HYD-1, construction impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge
requirements would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operation Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Topographically, the project site is generally flat with the northeast
corner of the site being the highest elevation and the southwest corner of the site being the lowest
elevation. In the existing condition, stormwater flows from the project site to both Lemon Street and
Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon Street is collected by a
catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue, while discharge to
Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street just east of Lemon
Street.
From the catch basins, stormwater is conveyed through the local MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System) before discharging into Carbon Creek Channel prior to entering Gilbert Retarding
Basin. Carbon Creek Channel serves as a principle tributary of the San Gabriel River Reach 1. A
portion of the San Gabriel River downstream of the Gilbert Retarding Basin is included on the 303(d)
list of impaired water bodies. 303(d) listed impairments for the San Gabriel River are coliform
bacteria and pH, while the San Gabriel Estuary is impaired with copper, dioxin, nickel, and dissolved
oxygen. As such, pollutants of concern for the proposed project include suspended solid-sediment,
nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and
debris.
Overall, the proposed project would have a net decrease in the quantity of impervious area found on
the project site as compared to the existing condition. Currently, the project site consists of a
commercial building and associated paved parking lot that account for impervious surfaces covering
96-percent of the project site. The proposed project would decrease the impervious surfaces found on
the project site to 85-percent. Stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and
catch basins, and then directed to one of two Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes located on
the northwest and southwest portion of the project site for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by one of
four MaxWell IV drywells located on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the site (see the
BMP Exhibit in Appendix E, Hydrology, for the proposed locations of the Treatment Control BMPs).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes are pre-treatment devises used for treatment done
through drywells. When incorporated in the design of a stormwater collection system, they prevent
clogging of and preserve the life of drywells by reducing pollutants that affect drywell performance,
specifically debris, refuse, and sediment. The MaxWell IV drywells are designed to capture and
infiltrate the entire first flush, effectively resulting in the eliminations of all pollutants.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design
Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined
from the local historical rainfall record for the project area. With incorporation of these BMPs, the
design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project
site, while increasing infiltration and effectively eliminating any downstream impacts.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed Treatment Control BMPs, which include Bio Clean
Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells, operation impacts associated with water
quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements would be less than significant.
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?
Groundwater Supplies
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim receives its water from two main sources: (1)
the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District
(OCWD), and (2) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD). Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and imported 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. Groundwater
supply is projected to account for approximately 65-percent of the City’s total water supply from
2015 through 2035 in normal and single dry years. A lower Basin Production Percentage (BPP) of
62-percent is anticipated for multiple dry years. Based on data from the UWMP, Table 9 and Table
10 illustrate the City’s current and projected water demand, and the projected water supply.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 79
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)
Fiscal Year Ending Water Supply Sources
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Metropolitan (Imported) 22,031 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106
Groundwater 44,898 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339
Recycled Water 220 255 255 255 255
Total 66,929 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Source: City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011.
Table 10: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)
Fiscal Year Ending
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Demand 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Groundwater Supply 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339
Recycled Water Supply 220 255 255 255 255
Imported Supply 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106
Total Supply 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Source: City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011.
Since the proposed project is consistent with the existing City of Anaheim General Plan “Mixed Use”
land use designation, the development of the project would be considered consistent with the City’s
future projected water demand. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be
less than significant.
Groundwater Recharge
Less Than Significant Impact. Overall, the proposed project would have a net decrease in the
quantity of impervious area found on the project site as compared to the existing condition.
Currently, the project site consists of a commercial building and associated paved parking lot that
account for impervious surfaces covering 96 percent of the project site. The proposed project would
decrease the impervious area found on the project site to 85 percent. When compared to the existing
condition, the proposed project would include more landscaped areas, which would account for the
11 percent increase in the amount of pervious surfaces found on the project site. These pervious areas
would allow stormwater to collect and infiltrate into subsurface soils and eventually into the
groundwater basin.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Stormwater flows from the impervious surfaces would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains,
and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment
prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells.
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration and groundwater
recharge. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. In the existing condition, stormwater flows from the project site to
both Lemon Street and Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon
Street is collected by a catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue,
while discharge to Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street
just east of Lemon Street.
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by
MaxWell IV drywells.
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently decrease the potential for
on- or off-site erosion or siltation. Therefore, impacts associated with the altering of the existing
drainage pattern and erosion would be less than significant.
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. As previously discussed, stormwater would be collected onsite by
roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle
Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the or Stormwater Quality
Design Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as
determined from the local historical rainfall record for the project area.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 81
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently decrease the potential for
onsite or offsite flooding. Therefore, impacts associated with the altering of the existing drainage
pattern and flooding would be less than significant.
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. As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains,
area drains, and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for
pre-treatment prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells. In accordance with the Countywide
Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment Control BMPs would be sized to
treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater Quality Design Volume. The
Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall
intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design Volume is the volume of
runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical
rainfall record for the project area.
In the existing condition, the Lemon Street catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced
concrete pipe, and the Lincoln Avenue catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete
pipe, have been deemed capable of adequately providing drainage from the project site (KHR
Associates 2008). The proposed BMPs, however, would greatly reduce the need for these existing
drainage features, as these features would only be needed during large storm events when stormwater
runoff exceeds the capacity of the Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV
drywells.
With incorporation of the Treatment Control BMPs, the design of the proposed project would
decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently
decrease the potential for polluted runoff to discharge off-site. Therefore, impacts associated with
creating or contributing runoff water would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, with incorporation of the proposed
Treatment Control BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff volume
currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration and effectively eliminating any
downstream or water quality degradation impacts.
The proposed project would have a net decrease in the quantity of impervious area found on the
project site as compared to the existing condition. The proposed project would decrease the
impervious surfaces found on the project site by 11 percent, replacing these areas with landscaped
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
features that would promote the collection and infiltration of stormwater into subsurface soils and
eventually into the groundwater basin.
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by
MaxWell IV drywells. In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan,
the proposed Treatment Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design
Flow or Stormwater Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum
flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the
Stormwater Quality Design Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile
storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record for the project area. Pollutants
contained within stormwater runoff would be collected and treated by the proposed BMPs. The
proposed BMPs would reduce the proposed project’s effect on downstream water quality (i.e., the
current impaired waters within Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River) In the existing conditions,
pollutants are discharged to the catch basins located along Lemon Street or Lincoln Avenue, enter the
local MS4, and are conveyed downstream to the impaired waters of Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed Treatment Control BMPs, which include Bio Clean
Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells, operation impacts associated with the
degradation of water quality would be less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the project site and the surrounding area is located within the
Flood Hazard Zone identified by FEMA as “0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard.” As such, the
project site is located within a 500-year floodplain, but outside of a 100-year flood hazard area. The
nearest Flood Hazard Zone “A” (100-year flood hazard area) to the project site is a riprap lined
channel located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the site. Therefore, although the proposed
project would introduce residential units to the project site, impacts associated with placing
residences within a 100-year flood hazard area would be less than significant.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the project site and the surrounding area is
located within the Flood Hazard Zone identified by FEMA as “0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood
Hazard.” As such, the project site is located within a 500-year floodplain, but outside of a 100-year
flood hazard area. Therefore, although the proposed project would introduce a mixed use building to
the project site, impacts associated with placing structures within a 100-year flood hazard area would
be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 83
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, the
project site and the majority of the City of Anaheim is located within the dam inundation area of
Prado Dam. Prado Dam is located approximately 16 miles east-northeast of the project site, along the
Santa Ana River, west of the City of Corona.
Prado Dam does not have a history of dam failure. The dam is routinely inspected for structural
integrity by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), the Orange County Flood Control District,
and other regional and local agencies. The dam is routinely managed, especially during storm events,
to ensure that water levels are at safe levels. Additionally, the USACE is currently conducting
improvements on the dam and its ancillary facilities to increase capacity and reduce the opportunity
for downstream inundation during major, prolonged storm events. Therefore, impacts associated with
dam inundation would be less than significant.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Due to its location and topographical characteristics, the project site would not be
susceptible to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Seiche would typically affect a location near a larger
body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. The project site does not occur near any body of water of
significance. The project site is located approximately 12.50 miles northeast from the Pacific Ocean,
which would reduce the potential for tsunami. Based upon the relative flat topography of the project
site and the surrounding area, as well as the lack of adjacent hillsides, the potential for mudflow on
the project site would also be reduced. Therefore, no impacts associated with seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed use,
residential and commercial building. Project construction would occur on the existing development
footprint and would not expand into the surrounding established community. The proposed project
does not include any improvements that would physically extend into the neighboring community.
Following development of the proposed project, the surrounding community, including the adjacent
residential uses to the north, would remain in their existing physical condition. The proposed project
would not add new roadways, walls, fences, drainages, or other physical barriers that would limit
access to and around the neighboring community. Therefore, impacts associated with physical
division of an established community would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is designated under the General Plan as Mixed Use
(MU) that allows a dynamic urban environment that serves as a center of activity for the surrounding
area. The MU designation provides opportunities for an integrated mix of residential, retail, service,
entertainment and office opportunities in a pedestrian-friendly environment. In addition, the MU
designation includes continuous commercial street frontage on the first and perhaps second floors
supported by residential and/or office uses above. The proposed project includes a mixture of
commercial and residential which is consistent with the MU designation.
The proposed project is designated under the Zoning Ordinance as General Commercial and
Transitional. The proposed project includes a proposed change of the Transitional zone to General
Commercial. The Transitional zone is to provide a zone to include land that is used for agriculture
uses, in a transitory or interim use; however, the portion of the project site that is zoned for
Transitional (portion of the site bordering Cypress Street) has not been in agriculture for many years.
Instead, the area designated Transitional zone has been an asphalt and/or concrete parking lot
supporting office and/or automobile dealership for many decades. The change in zoning will not
result in the project causing significant and unavoidable environmental effects as discussed in this
IS/MND. Furthermore, the proposed project includes a MU overlay zone that will allow the proposed
commercial and residential uses on the project site. Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim
Municipal Code indicates that within the MU Overlay Zone, multiple-family dwellings require a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, certain commercial uses typically found in mixed use
developments such as restaurants and general retail are permitted uses, while any establishment
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 85
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
selling alcohol require a CUP. With the required CUP(s), the proposed project would be a permitted
use within the MU Overlay Zone and considered consistent with surrounding land uses.
The project site is located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District, which includes buildings
already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as structures that have been
determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, but have not been formally designated at
this time. The City prepared the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan in 1999 and The
Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines in 2003. The Plan and the Guidelines
include goals, objectives, and guidelines to preserve and protect historic buildings within the
Anaheim Colony Historic District.
One National Register-listed property, the Samuel Kraemer Building (circa 1925), a former bank
building, is located on Claudina Street within the viewshed of the project site. The planned design of
the proposed project has borrowed stylistic elements from this historic building, creating a
compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of the complex borrows window
and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in the Anaheim Colony Historic
District, displaying a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed
design features of the proposed project’s structures will result in consistency with the Anaheim
Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design
Guidelines.
Overall, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts associated with applicable
land use plans, policies, or regulations.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundary of any Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan. According
to the City of Anaheim 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 located approximately five miles east of the
project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with conflicts with conservation plans would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
11. 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?
No Impact. According to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, mineral resources
within the County are primarily limited to sand, gravel, and aggregate resources occurring in portions
of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, San Juan Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco. No mineral extraction
activities occur on or adjacent to the project site, and no known mineral resources are present on the
site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of known mineral
resources would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element states
that mineral resources within the County, including the general project area, are limited to portions of
the Santa River, Santiago Creek, San Juan Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco. No mineral extraction
activities occur on or adjacent to the project site, and no locally-important mineral resources recovery
site is present on the site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of
locally-important mineral resource recovery sites would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 87
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
12. Noise
Noise monitoring was performed using an Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating sound level
meters. The Extech meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record the sound pressure level at
1-second intervals in A-weighted form. The sound level meter and microphone was mounted
approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.
The sound level meter was calibrated before monitoring using an Extech calibrator, Model 407766.
The noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current
noise sources impacting the project site and the project vicinity, and to provide a baseline for any
potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. The sites are
shown in Exhibit 6. Appendix F, Noise Analysis, includes a photographic index of the study area and
noise level measurement locations.
The noise measurements were recorded between 11:28 hours and 12:54 hours on Monday, March 12,
2012. At the start of the noise monitoring, the temperature was 62°F, the sky was partly cloudy with
calm wind conditions ranging between 0 and 3 mph.
The noise measurements were taken at five (5) locations at the project site. The results of the noise
level measurements are provided below in Table 11.
Table 11: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Site
Location Description Leq LMAX LMIN
Site 1 At the southeast corner of Pearson Park; ~115 feet
northwest of the project site.
58.2 73.2 44.5
Site 2 Just south of the adjacent residential uses
immediately north of the project site, ~50 feet north
of the project site.
57.8 79.1 47.4
Site 3 On the western project site boundary adjacent to the
existing egress/ingress driveway
59.8 74.0 46.1
Site 4 Just outside of the southern project site boundary
adjacent to Lincoln Avenue.
76.8 103.1* 51.1
Site 5 Just outside of the eastern project site boundary
adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard.
68.2 81.2 56.9
* High maximum due to a passing emergency vehicle.
Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Would the project result in:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Anaheim General Plan and
Municipal Code contains standards that regulate the exposure of persons to or the generation of
excessive noise levels. The General Plan Noise Element includes the following Goals and Policies
regarding noise that are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal 1.1
Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and
regulation.
Policies:
1) Update City regulations to adopt Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Exposure and California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards as
appropriate.
2) Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and
quality of life goals and employ effective techniques of noise abatement
through such means as a noise ordinance, building codes, and subdivision
and zoning regulations.
3) Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment
when preparing, revising or reviewing development proposals.
4) Require mitigation where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation
routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through appropriate means of
mitigation thereby maintaining quality of life standards.
5) Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts.
6) Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL
without appropriate mitigation.
7) Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic
consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the
development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to
impact sensitive land uses.
00550033 • 03/2012 | 6_noise_meter_loc.mxd
Exhibit 6Noise Meter LocationsNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. MBA Field Survey and GIS Data, 2012.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Cypress St Cypress St
Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave
Anahe
im
B
lvd
Anahe
im
B
lvd
Lemon
S
t
Lemon
S
t
1 2
5
4
3
140 0 14070
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
Noise Meter Locations
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 91
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Goal 2.1
Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as
motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements.
Policies
2) Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future
streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road
segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of
natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining
noise-sensitive areas.
3) Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses
provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal 3.1
Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from
the City’s activity centers.
Policies
1) Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from
exceeding stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate
residential or commercial uses, as appropriate.
3) Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular
emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other
than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or
holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these
operations could disturb the classroom environment.
4) Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake
silencers no less effective than originally equipped.
5) Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations
performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide
evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
In addition to the Noise Element, the City of Anaheim Municipal Code contains the following
ordinances regarding noise that are applicable to the proposed project:
Chapter 6.70 Sound Pressure Levels
Section 6.70.010 Established
Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are hereby
determined to be objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and
quiet enjoyment of property in this City.
No person shall within the City create any sound radiated for extended periods from
any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line
in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level
meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s
instructions, using the slowest meter response.
The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property
line, but not closer than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet
above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply.
At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three (3)
readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be
five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the
source’s of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating.
Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured
according to American Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards
Association, Inc., New York City, New York.
Traffic sounds sound created by emergency activities and sound created by
governmental units or their contractors shall be exempt from the applications of this
chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the
City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by
the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18,
1968; Ord. 3400 § 1; February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.)
Chapter 18.32 Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone
Section 18.32.130 Compatibility Standards
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 93
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
.020 Restriction on Activities) Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and
hours of operation limited, where appropriate, so that neighboring residents are not
exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries
or late night activity. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy
trucks at the site between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.
.030 Noise Standards) Residential portions of the project shall be designed to limit
the interior noise caused by the commercial and parking portions of the project, to a
maximum of forty-five (45) db CNEL on an annual basis in any habitable room with
windows closed. Proper design may include, but shall not be limited to, building
orientation, double or extra-strength windows, wall and ceiling insulation, and
orientation and insulation of vents. Where it is necessary that windows be closed in
order to achieve the required level, means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling to
provide a habitable environment.
.040 Vibrations and Odors) No use, activity or process shall produce continual
vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible, without instruments, by the average
person at the property lines of the site, or within the interior of residential units on the
site.
An increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceivable to most healthy ears. Typically, an increase of
5 dBA or greater is considered one of significance, as such an increase is considered readily
perceptible. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR’s Noise
Section 5.10.3, Thresholds of Significance:
Mobile-source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation, but is still
subject to CEQA. Here, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their
resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan (e.g., 65 dBA
(CNEL) at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant level were to meet or exceed the
objectives of the General Plan (Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the
predicted noise levels with the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq.).
Also note that an impact is only potentially significant if it affects a receptor. An increase in
noise in an uninhabited location would not denote a significant impact.
Long-Term Vehicular Noise
The Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed project determined which
roadways are likely to be affected by vehicles accessing the proposed project. Average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes for those roadways under various scenarios were calculated and off-site noise levels
were calculated along roadway segments in the project study area for the following scenarios:
existing conditions; existing plus project conditions; year 2015 conditions with project, and year 2015
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
conditions without project. Table 12 shows the traffic noise levels generated on the surrounding
roadways within the project study area. As shown, the difference in traffic noise from the existing
conditions is the increase in noise attributable to project-related traffic at buildout.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 95 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 12: Noise Levels 50 feet from Roadway Centerline Existing (2011) Existing Plus Project 2015 E + P 2015 w/o Project 2015 + Project Road Segment ADT dB CNEL ADT Total Project-Specific Increase ADT dB CNEL ADT Total Project-Specific Increase Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 17,421 70.1 17,791 70.2 0.1 18,128 70.3 19,378 70.6 0.3 South of Sycamore Street 18,777 70.4 19,187 70.5 0.1 19,539 70.6 20,829 70.9 0.3 South of Cypress Street 19,604 70.6 20,574 70.8 0.2 20,400 70.8 22,250 71.2 0.4 South of Lincoln Avenue 19,455 70.6 19,965 70.7 0.1 20,245 70.8 24,275 71.6 0.8 South of Broadway 19,784 70.7 20,244 70.8 0.1 20,587 70.8 24,567 71.6 0.8 Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 889 57.2 2,339 61.4 4.2 925 57.4 2,375 61.5 4.1 Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2,047 60.8 2,877 62.3 1.5 2,130 61.0 2,960 62.4 1.4 Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 25,442 71.8 25,562 71.8 0.0 26,475 71.9 26,595 71.9 0.0 Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 25,433 71.8 26,243 71.9 0.1 26,466 71.9 29,036 72.3 0.4 East of Clementine Street 23,960 71.5 24,770 71.6 0.1 24,933 71.7 27,503 72.1 0.4 East of Lemon Street 22,865 71.3 23,095 71.3 0.0 23,793 71.5 25,783 71.8 0.3 East of Anaheim Boulevard 22,366 71.2 22,826 71.3 0.1 23,274 71.4 24,614 71.6 0.2 West of Olive Street 20,638 70.8 21,098 70.9 0.1 21,476 71.0 22,816 71.3 0.3 Notes: * The uniform distance of 50 feet allows for direct comparisons of potential increases or decreases in noise levels based upon various traffic scenarios; however, at this distance, no specific noise standard necessarily applies. Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, 2012
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
96 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
A maximum noise increase of 4.2 dBA due to project-related traffic would occur along the segment
of Cypress Street, east of Lemon Street (see Appendix F, Noise Analysis, for calculation table). Per
the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant
impact. Since the increase in noise levels for the existing plus project conditions and the year 2015
with project conditions over the existing conditions is less than this 5 dBA threshold of significance, a
significant impact associated with off-site vehicular noise would not occur.
Future (year 2015 conditions with project ) noise impacts related to vehicular traffic were modeled
using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108), as modified for CNEL and the “Calveno” energy curves. Site-specific
information is entered, such as roadway traffic volumes, roadway active width, source-to-receiver
distances, travel speed, noise source and receiver heights, and the percentages of automobiles,
medium trucks, and heavy trucks that the traffic is made up of throughout the day, amongst other
variables. Interior noise levels are determined by reducing the level of noise impacting a building’s
facade, by the attenuation properties provided by that building’s construction materials.
Because detailed architectural plans were not available for analysis at the time this study was
prepared, typical assumptions have been applied. The typical structural attenuation of residential
buildings is approximately 20 dBA. Typical commercial/industrial building practices provide a
minimum of approximately 25 dBA of noise attenuation.
Table 13: Interior Noise Levels
Road Location
Distance to
Receiver
from
Centerline of
Road (feet)
Calculated
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Estimated
Interior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Exterior 90 53.3 —
First floor façade 90 54.6 34.6
Second floor façade 90 54.5 34.5
Third floor façade 90 54.4 34.4
Cypress Street
Fourth floor façade 90 54.2 34.2
Exterior 44 57.3 —
First floor façade 44 57.3 37.3
Second floor façade 44 57.1 37.1
Third floor façade 44 56.9 36.9
Lemon Street
Fourth floor façade 44 56.6 36.6
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 97
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 13 (cont.): Interior Noise Levels
Road Location
Distance to
Receiver
from
Centerline of
Road (feet)
Calculated
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Estimated
Interior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Exterior 69 66.7 —
First floor façade 69 66.7 46.7
Second floor façade 69 66.6 46.6
Third floor façade 69 66.5 46.5
Lincoln Avenue
Fourth floor façade 69 66.4 46.4
South Anaheim Boulevard Exterior of retail building 74 65.9 40.9
Notes:
Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Table 13 shows that the first floor façade of the building adjacent to Lincoln Avenue will be exposed
to a noise level of 66.7 dBA, in excess of the 65 dBA residential standard. The floors above are also
exposed to exterior levels higher than 65 dBA. As a result, interior noise levels would exceed the 45
dBA (CNEL) interior standard established by the State of California Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, as shown on Table N-3 in the Noise Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan.
According to the Goal 1.1, Policy 4 contained in the Noise Element, mitigation is required where
sensitive uses are placed along transportation routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through
appropriate means of mitigation, thereby maintaining quality of life standards. Exterior noise
mitigation, such as walls or berms are not permitted at this location. To reduce the interior noise
impacts to the acceptable level of 45 dBA (CNEL) or below, windows and doors with a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or higher will need to be incorporated into the construction of
units adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 shall be implemented during
construction of the project. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, a significant impact
associated with interior noise levels would not occur. Standard construction practices will be
sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to less than 45 dBA for units along Cypress Street and Lemon
Street. Interior noise levels within the commercial uses adjacent to south Anaheim Boulevard will be
well below the interior noise standard of 50 dBA for commercial uses.
MM NOI-1 Double or extra-strength windows and doors with an STC rating of 22 or higher shall
be installed in all residential units adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Interior noise levels
must then be checked to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45 dB (CNEL).
Where it is necessary that windows be closed in order to achieve the required level,
means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling shall be included to provide a
habitable environment.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
98 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Long-Term Stationary Noise
Residential Uses
The proposed project is a mixed use residential and commercial use. The residential portion would
not be considered a substantial source of stationary noise. The proposed project would also include
facilities such as a pool, clubhouse, and fitness center that would be centrally located within the
building. The proposed buildings would shield the adjacent land uses from the minimal noise
generated by residents using these amenities. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed
residential uses would be less than significant.
Commercial/Retail Uses
Commercial/retail uses are proposed for the eastern portion of the project site. The bulk of the
residential portion would be shielded from activities at the commercial/retail uses by the three-story
parking garage structure proposed for the middle of the project site. The one-bedroom, one-bathroom
residential unit proposed for the southeastern edge of the residential portion would not be shielded by
the parking garage. However, this particular residential unit would be nearest to the rear of the 9,800
sq ft commercial/retail space proposed for the southeastern corner of the building, with the retail
structure itself shielding this specific residential unit from the activities closer to the center of the
commercial/retail uses. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed commercial/retail uses
would be less than significant.
Parking Garage and Exterior Parking Lot
The predominant noise sources associated with parking garage activities include car doors slamming;
cars starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; car alarms being activated; brake squeal;
and suspension squeal when vehicles pass over speed bumps. Activities at the parking structure
would be sporadic in nature, occurring throughout the day with the highest concentration of activities
during the peak morning and afternoon periods. Parking garage activities would generate an average
hourly noise level of 57 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This is less than the 65 dBA residential
standard. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed parking garage would be less than
significant.
An uncovered exterior parking lot is also proposed along the northern portion of the project site and
would involve similar activities and generate similar noise impacts (approximately 57 dBA) as the
parking garage. The noise associated with parking structure/lot activities would be overshadowed by
the traffic noise along Cypress Street and is slightly lower than the noise levels already experienced
by residents in this area (57.8 dBA Leq and 79.1 dBA Lmax). Therefore, stationary noise levels from
the proposed exterior parking lot would be less than significant.
Short-Term Stationary Noise
As discussed in Section 12d), short-term construction noise impacts would be less than significant
because construction noise is exempt from the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and noise levels
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 99
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
would not exceed the OSHA standard. Although construction noise levels are anticipated to be less
than significant, the following conditions of approval would further reduce construction noise levels.
• All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly
maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be
equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all
equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by
faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive train, and other components.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise
is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the
residential use.
• The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and
telephone number of the owner’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise
complaint.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The human response to vibration greatly depends on whether the
source is continuous or transient. Continuous sources of vibration include certain construction
activities, while transient sources include large vehicle movements. Generally, thresholds of
perception and agitation are higher for continuous sources.
Table 14 illustrates the human response to both continuous and transient sources of groundborne
vibration.
Table 14: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration
Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second)
Continuous Transient Human Response
0.40 2.00 Severe
0.10 0.90 Strongly perceptible
0.04 0.25 Distinctly perceptible
0.01 0.04 Barely perceptible
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2004.
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower.
These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65
VdB. Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
100 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce
perceptible groundborne noise or vibration (Table 15). Acceptable vibration levels for an office
environment would be 84 VdB, while levels for a residential use would be 78 VdB.
Table 15: Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
(LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)
0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range
0.170 typical
105
93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
0.008 in soil
0.017 in rock
66
75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
While long-term operations of the proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels, short-term construction activities could potentially introduce
groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area. Specialty construction equipment
such as pile drivers or large earthmovers, as well as specific construction activities such as well
drilling, can be a continuous source of excessive groundborne vibration.
Construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers,
which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary source of
vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would
generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. The
vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the residential uses located north of the site,
approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary. The bulldozer, however, would primarily
be used during demolition of the existing onsite building, and would operate on average
approximately 220 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. It is anticipated that vibration levels
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 101
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
generated by a bulldozer and experienced at the nearest offsite structure would be less than 50 VdB,
well below the acceptable level of 78 VdB for residential (sensitive) uses during the day.
While grading and earthmoving activities would occur on the project site, the use of pile drivers, large
earthmovers, and other construction equipment and activities associated with groundborne vibration
are not expected to occur. Demolition of the existing onsite building would not require the use of
blasting, wrecking ball, or other groundborne vibration-generating equipment. Therefore, impacts
associated with excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than
significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously described in Section 12a),
increases in long-term noise levels related to the proposed project could be significant. However,
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce noise levels on proposed residential uses along
Lincoln Avenue to less than significant. Less than significant long-term noise impacts on uses in the
project vicinity would occur as described in Section 12a).
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. The City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance regulates the timing of
construction activities. No construction shall be permitted outside of the hours specified in Chapter
6.70 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City restricts construction activities to the daytime hours of
7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
The potential for construction noise to become objectionable depends on the magnitude of noise
generated by the construction equipment, the frequency of noise sources during the construction day,
and total duration of construction activities. Construction activities would comply with the City of
Anaheim Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction. Overall, construction activities
would be restricted to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, maximum noise levels would be
infrequent throughout the workday, and construction noise would conclude once the proposed project
is completed.
The nearest existing residential uses to the project site include the residential uses located north of the
site, approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary. The backyards (useable space) of
these residential uses are separated from Cypress Street and the project site by an existing 5-foot
block wall, which would further reduce noise levels.
Grading is considered the noisiest phase of construction. As such, the anticipated grading equipment
was modeled. Modeling for construction-related noise was performed using the U.S. Department of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
102 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model
(RCNM). The RCNM is the FHWA national model used for the prediction of construction-related
noise and to determine compliance with noise limits for a variety of types of construction projects of
varying complexity. The RCNM includes an extensive compilation of built-in reference noise levels
for dozens of types of construction-related equipment based on manufacturer and actual monitored
sources. The results from RCNM analysis are shown in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Description
Noise Level
(Lmax dBA) at 50
feet
Distance to
Receptor
(feet)
Maximum
Noise Level
(Lmax dBA)
at
Receptor1
Average
Noise Level
(Leq dBA)
at
Receptor1, 2
Grader 85 220 72.1 68.2
Excavator 80.7 220 67.8 63.9
Dozer 81.7 220 68.8 64.8
Tractor 84 220 71.1 67.2
Notes:
1 Noise levels are based on an average distance, which would be from the center of the
project site to the edge of the residential property line.
2 Represents the noise level averaged over the time the equipment is operated (not a 24-
hr average level, such as CNEL or Ldn), if the equipment was continually used.
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (Appendix F).
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of
full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Therefore, noise
levels fluctuate during construction activities. Although there would be a relatively high single event
noise exposure potential, resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-
term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time (24 hours for CNEL). As
shown by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 11, the maximum noise levels in the project
vicinity can be as high as 103.1 dBA (Lmax), or 81.2 dBA (Lmax) without emergency vehicles. The
results shown in Table 16 show that construction equipment would generate maximum noise levels of
72.1 dBA (Lmax) at 220 feet. Although the nearest existing residential uses to the project site are
located approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary, the majority of grading activities
would occur towards the central portion of the site, at an average distance of 220 feet from these
sensitive receptors. Noise generated from construction equipment would be transitory, intermittent,
and not a source of continuous noise. As mentioned previously, Section 6.70.010 of the City of
Anaheim Municipal Code states, “Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises
within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m.”
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 103
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
While exempt from local statutes, since some construction activities could still result in higher noise
levels, a noise threshold utilizing the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency
limits of noise exposure is used. Identifying a significance threshold using an OSHA standard is
considered conservative. The OSHA standard is limiting noise exposure of workers to 90 dB or less
over 8 continuous hours, or 105 dB or less over 1 continuous hour. For the purpose of analyzing
potential noise impacts using the OSHA-established noise threshold, onsite construction noise levels
that could expose residents or workers to more than 90 dB for over 8 continuous hours, or more than
105 dB for over 1 continuous hour are considered a significant noise impact. As shown in Table 17,
noise levels attributed to the onsite use of construction equipment would not exceed 85 dBA (Lmax) at
50 feet. As previously addressed, these noise levels would fluctuate during the workday. However,
construction noise would not exceed either the OSHA-established eight or one hour noise threshold.
Therefore, based on proceeding analysis, impacts associated with construction noise would be less
than significant. The conditions of approval identified in Section 12a) above would further reduce
construction noise levels.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is
located approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, John Wayne Airport, is
located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site. Any coincidental air traffic above the
project site would occur at a higher elevation that would not generate substantial noise levels on the
site. Therefore, no impacts associated with public use airports would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. The City of
Anaheim contains only heliports and helistops and does not contain any airstrips. As previously
discussed, any coincidental air traffic above the project site would occur at a higher elevation that
would not generate substantial noise levels on the site. Therefore, no impacts associated with private
airstrips would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
104 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
13. 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element provides a
blueprint for the future development of the City. The Land Use Element identifies 16,449 acres of
residential land uses, including 614 acres of mixed use land uses, and a projected 131,385 total
dwelling units housing 404,263 persons at buildout. According to Table LU-5 on page LU-40 of the
Land Use Element, this buildout population projection is based upon a factor of 3.3 persons per
household in residential areas, and 1.5 persons per household in mixed use areas.
Using the factor of 1.5 persons per household in mixed use areas, as identified in the Land Use
Element, the proposed project would provide housing for approximately 330 residents (220 total units
multiplied by 1.5 persons per household results in 330 people).
Figure 2-1 on page 2-3 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element indicates that, at the
time of publication, the City anticipated an additional 15,450 new residents between 2010 and 2020.
Based on 330 residents, the number of new residents generated by the proposed project would
represent approximately two-percent of the 15,450 new residents already expected by the City.
According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, a total of 131,385 dwelling units are anticipated
within the City’s planning areas at buildout. As of 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 104,237
residential units exist in the City, leaving a remaining capacity of 27,148 new dwelling units. The
proposed project would include 220 new residential units, which would help the City meet its need
for dwelling units at buildout.
The City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element provides an overview of existing housing needs
in the City. In particular, the Housing Element identifies general reasons that help further explain the
City’s future housing needs, including needs resulting from overcrowding and needs resulting from
population growth and demolition of the existing housing stock. The Housing Element acknowledges
that the City’s current availability of two-bedroom units and larger fails to meet existing needs to
accommodate larger families. The proposed project would include a balanced mix of studio units,
one-bedroom units, and two-bedroom units that would meet the needs of both individuals and
families, while potentially offering an alternative to families currently experiencing overcrowding.
Additionally, based upon the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s metric of 945 sq ft of floor space per
retail/service employee, the 18,000 sq ft of proposed commercial/retail space would generate
approximately 19 employees. It is anticipated that the majority of these employment opportunities
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 105
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
would be filled by residents of the proposed project or by local residents. The roughly 19 employees
estimated to operate the first-floor retail operations would represent a nominal percentage of the City
of Anaheim’s total population and would not represent a substantial increase in total population.
Moreover, as previously discussed, the City’s General Plan has anticipated and accounted for an
increase in population.
Therefore, based upon the above, impacts associated with population growth would be less than
significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. In its existing condition, the project site consists of a vacant 25,000 sq ft commercial
building and an associated parking lot. Currently, no residential uses occur on the project site.
Additionally, no element of the proposed project would conflict with any of the surrounding
residential uses. As a result, the proposed project would not displace any numbers of existing
housing. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement of existing housing would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As previously discussed, no residential uses currently occur on the project site, and the
proposed project would not displace any number of existing housing. As such, the proposed project
would not displace any numbers of people. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement
of people would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
106 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) provides fire protection
services in the City of Anaheim. The AFD operates 12 fire stations comprised of 10 engine
companies and five truck companies, and employees 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. In addition to these responsibilities, the Department is also charged with maintaining both a
Type I Haz Mat Response unit and an Urban Search and Rescue Team. Downtown Station No. 1
(500 E. Broadway) is the closest fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.6 miles via
local roads from the site. Downtown Station No. 1 houses Paramedic Engine 1, Engine 21, and Truck
1. The second nearest fire station to the project site is Stadium Station No. 7 (2222 E. Ball Road),
which is located roughly 2.75 miles via local roads from the site (City of Anaheim 2012a).
The AFD 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 10-percent. The AFD also
requires a maximum of 10 minutes for the first truck company to respond to 100-percent of all
incidents (City of Anaheim 2012a). In an email correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated
April 5, 2012, Rusty Coffelt, Deputy Chief of Support Services with the AFD provided information
that stated that in 2010, the average total travel time for incidents was five minutes, eighteen seconds
for all calls.
Based on the relatively short distance between the project site and Downtown Station No. 1, engine
and truck companies would be able to respond to the site within AFD’s response time goal.
As such, the AFD would be able to maintain its response time goals without construction of new or
expansion of existing AFD facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services and
facilities would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) provides police protection
services in the City of Anaheim. The APD operates out of its Headquarters (425 S. Harbor
Boulevard), East Station (8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road), and West Station (320 S. Beach
Boulevard), and employees 400 sworn officers and a support staff of over 173. The Department is
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 107
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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).
In a written correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated March 28, 2012, Lieutenant Jarret
Young of the APD states the APD has a response time goal of eight minutes to any Priority 1 Calls.
The approximate average response time of patrol units to Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the
jurisdiction is an average of 6.1 minutes. The response times for non-emergency Priority 2 and
Priority 3 calls are an average of 8.6 minutes and 19.2 minutes, respectively (City of Anaheim
2012b). The APD does not currently have a service ratio based on population of a particular service
area.
According to the written correspondence, the APD would not need to expand existing or construct
new facilities to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives. Therefore,
impacts associated with police protection services and facilities would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim City School District (ACSD) provides elementary
school services (Kindergarten through Sixth Grade) for students in the project area. The ACSD is
comprised of 24 schools located throughout a greater portion of the City (Anaheim City School
District 2012). The ACSD’s 2010-2030 Facilities Master Plan indicates that after peaking at 22,426
enrolled students during the 2001-2002 school year, enrollment currently sits at 19,274 students for
the 2011-2012 school year. The ACSD currently has capacity for 22,425 students, which represents a
3,151-seat surplus (Anaheim City School District 2011). Franklin Elementary (521 W. Water Street)
is the closest ACSD school to the project site, located approximately 0.66 miles southwest of the site.
The Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) provides intermediate school services (Seventh
and Eighth Grades) and high school services (Ninth through Twelfth Grades) for students in the
project area. The AUHSD is comprised of 20 schools located throughout the central and western
portions of the City (Anaheim Union High School District 2012). The California Department of
Education indicates that enrollment sat at 33,049 students for the 2010-2011 school year (California
Department of Education 2010). Sycamore Junior High School (1801 E. Sycamore Street) and
Anaheim High School (811 W. Lincoln Avenue) are the closest AUHSD schools to the project site,
located approximately 1.25 miles northeast and roughly 0.55 miles west, respectively, of the site.
Using the student generation rate found in ACSD’s 2008 Fee Justification Report for New Residential
and Commercial/Industrial Development, multifamily residential uses generate elementary school
students at 0.3609 students per dwelling unit. At 220 residential units, the proposed project could
generate approximately 80 elementary school students. Additionally, to determine the amount of
intermediate school and high school students that the proposed project would produce, student
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
108 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
generation rates found in the Public Services and Facilities section of the City of Anaheim General
Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR were used. According to these generation rates, multifamily
residential uses produce intermediate school students at 0.013 students per dwelling unit and high
school students at 0.032 students per unit. At 220 residential units, the proposed project would
generate approximately three intermediate school students and roughly seven high school students.
In an email correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated March 26, 2012, Tom Rizzuti,
Director of Facilities and Planning with the ACSD stated that the ACSD continues to be
overcrowded, with five schools currently on a multi-track year round calendar and over 200 portable
classrooms presently in use. The correspondence concluded that while the project in and of itself may
or may not create the need for additional school facilities, when coupled with other residential
projects throughout the ACSD’s enrollment boundary, the combined projects would exacerbate the
need for additional facilities and result in potentially significant impact to the ACSD.
While the proposed project would generate a more modest amount of intermediate and high school
students when compared with elementary students, the AUHSD is also currently experiencing the
effects of overcrowding and aging facilities. Similarly, the project in and of itself may or may not
create the need for additional school facilities, and when coupled with other similar projects that
would also generate new students, would result in potentially significant impacts to the AUHSD.
Per SB 50 (also know as Proposition 1A and codified as Government Code Section 65995), school
districts are permitted to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by that
development and receive a 50-percent match from State bond money. According to Table 3-17 on
page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant would be accessed a
School Facilities fee of $2.63 per sq ft. These fees would help facilitate construction of new and the
improvement and modernization of existing facilities. These fees would assist in offsetting any of the
potentially significant effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in student
populations. Therefore, based upon the mandatory fair share payment of School Facilities fees,
impacts associated with school services and facilities would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include 220 residential units that would
house approximately 330 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize
the various existing pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers and
specialized recreational facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. The closest park to the project
site is the 19-acre Pearson Park, which is located immediately to the northwest of the site and
provides a wide range of passive and active recreational opportunities. Other parks occur in the
project area, including the 0.2-acre Colony Park, the 3.0-acre George Washington Park, and the
Downtown Community Center.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 109
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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 Table 3-17 on page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant
would be accessed a In-Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees
would help offset any effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population
and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Therefore, based upon the proceeding, impacts
associated with park services and facilities would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include 220 residential units that would
house approximately 330 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to 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 Central Library (500 W. Broadway) is the
closest library facility to the project site and is the largest library in the Anaheim Public Library
system. According to the Public Services and Facilities section of the City of Anaheim General
Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR, there are approximately 330,000 people in the Anaheim Public
Library system.
The proposed project is projected to add approximately 330 residents, which represents roughly 0.1-
percent of the existing Anaheim residents that are served by the Anaheim Public Library system. The
proposed project’s additional population is considered nominal, and therefore, impacts associated to
library services and facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
110 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant. As discussed previously in Section 3.14, Public Services, Threshold d), at
least a portion of the proposed project’s residents are anticipated to patronize the various existing
pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers and specialized recreational
facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. The closest park to the project site is the 19-acre Pearson
Park, which is located immediately to the northwest of the site and provides a wide range of passive
and active recreational opportunities. Other parks occur in the project area, including the 0.2-acre
Colony Park, the 3.0-acre George Washington Park, and the Downtown Community Center.
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 Table 3-17 on page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant
would be accessed a In-Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees
would help offset any effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population
and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Additionally, these fees, in part, would go towards the
maintenance of existing recreational facilities to prevent physical deterioration. Therefore, impacts
associated with the increased use of existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include several private recreational
facilities, including fitness center, clubhouse/community room, and swimming pool and spa area.
Use of these recreational facilities would be limited to residents and their guests, and operation and
maintenance would be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. The environmental effects of
construction and operation of these facilities are analyzed within this IS/MND as part of the overall
proposed project.
As previously addressed, at least a portion of the proposed project’s residents are anticipated to
patronize the various existing pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers
and specialized recreational facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. In an effort to offset any
effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population and a subsequent
increase in park patronage, the Applicant would be accessed an In-Lieu Park Facilities fee, as
regulated by the City, based on the number of dwelling units. These fees, in part, would go towards
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and the mitigating of their potential physical
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 111
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
112 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
16. Transportation/Traffic
The following analysis summarizes the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared for the proposed
project and included as Appendix G of this IS/MND, which provides a detailed analysis and a
description of the forecasting methodology used.
Study Area
The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
within the Downtown Anaheim area. The project site is bounded by Cypress Street to the north,
Lincoln Avenue to the south, Lemon Street to the west, and Anaheim Boulevard to the east. The
study area is generally bounded by La Palma Avenue to the north, South Street to the south, East
Street to the east, and the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) Freeway to the west. Twelve existing study
intersections and 13 existing roadway segments were approved by the City of Anaheim for analysis.
The study intersections are:
1. Anaheim Boulevard and Sycamore Street
2. Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street
3. Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
4. Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway
5. Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street
6. Lemon Street and Cypress Street
7. Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
8. Clementine Street and Lincoln Avenue
9. Lemon Street and Lincoln Avenue
10. Olive Street and Lincoln Avenue
11. East Street and Lincoln Avenue
12. Harbor Boulevard and Broadway
The roadway segments are:
1. Anaheim Boulevard south of La Palma Avenue
2. Anaheim Boulevard south of Sycamore Street
3. Anaheim Boulevard south of Cypress Street
4. Anaheim Boulevard south of Lincoln Avenue
5. Anaheim Boulevard south of Broadway
6. Cypress Street east of Lemon Street
7. Lemon Street south of Cypress Street
8. Harbor Boulevard south of Lincoln Avenue
9. Lincoln Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard
10. Lincoln Avenue east of Clementine Street
11. Lincoln Avenue east of Lemon Street
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 113
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
12. Lincoln Avenue east of Anaheim Boulevard
13. Lincoln Avenue east of Olive Street
Existing Setting
The roadway network within the study area consists of arterial roadways and local streets that form a
grid system. Selected arterials that are located in the vicinity of the project site are below.
Lincoln Avenue: Lincoln Avenue is a six-lane Primary Arterial divided by a landscaped median that
travels east and west through the study area. Bicycle lanes are not provided on Lincoln Avenue
within the study area and on-street parking is not permitted. The corridor is a vital link through
downtown Anaheim and is served by Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) bus route 42.
Anaheim Boulevard: Anaheim Boulevard is a north-south roadway designated as a Primary Arterial
in the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. The roadway consists of two lanes in each direction
with a landscaped median. There is currently no striping provided for bicycle lanes along Anaheim
Boulevard. On-street parking is permitted in some segments along the roadway within the vicinity of
the study area.
Harbor Boulevard: Harbor Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial in the City’s Circulation
Element and provides north-south connection within the study area. The roadway consists of two
lanes in each direction with a landscaped median. There is currently no striping provided for bicycle
lanes. On-street parking is not permitted along the roadway within the vicinity of the study area.
Clementine Street: Clementine Street is a roadway providing north and south connection between
Santa Ana Street to the south and Lincoln Avenue to the north. The roadway consists of one lane in
each direction, a landscaped median, and left-turn pockets at intersections.
Lemon Street: Lemon Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels north and south through
the study area. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway in the residential portions
along the roadway.
Olive Street: Olive Street is designated as a Collector Street in the City’s Circulation Element and
provides north-south connection within the study area. The roadway consists of one-lane in each
direction, and is divided by freight railroad tracks south of Santa Ana Street. The roadway is
undivided north of Santa Ana Street.
East Street: East Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City’s Circulation Element and
travels north and south through the study area.
Sycamore Street: Sycamore Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west
through the study area. The City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Sycamore Street as a
Collector Street.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
114 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cypress Street: Cypress Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west through
the study area.
Broadway: Broadway is a four-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west through the study
area. The City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Broadway as a Secondary Arterial. A
landscaped median is provided between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard. On-street parking is
generally not permitted except along a few segments that are striped green for short-term parking.
Santa Ana Street: Santa Ana Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west
through the study area. Freight railroad track serves as a center divider west of Olive Street. The
City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Sycamore Street as a Collector Street.
Impact Criteria and Thresholds
The significance of project-generated traffic impacts at intersections is determined by calculating the
projected volume-to-capacity (V/C) change from the no project conditions to with project conditions.
A project’s traffic impact is considered to be significant if the change in capacity relative to the level
of service (LOS) meets or exceeds the thresholds contained in Table 17. For the purpose of this
analysis, a significant impact occurs at an unsignalized intersection when there is a decrease in LOS
by one level or more for locations operating at LOS D, E, or F.
Table 17: Significant Impact Criteria for Intersections
Level of
Service Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C
C >0.700 to 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05
D >0.800 to 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03
E, F >0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01
Source: City of Anaheim,, 2004.
For arterial roadway segments in the project area, the criteria for the City of Anaheim involves the
use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. The minimum level of service for
an arterial segment is LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) as adopted by the City of Anaheim for the
study area circulation system.
The City of Anaheim uses a two-step process to evaluate arterial segment performance. An initial
arterial daily ADT V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance. Where
potential for deficiencies are identified through this screening, the system performance is further
evaluated and measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands and throughput at the
adjacent intersections. Arterial segments that are found to operate deficiently under both daily and
peak hour conditions are identified as candidates for mitigation improvements.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 115
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
A project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily
level of service LOS D or worse, and continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis
conditions. A significant impact is also deemed to occur if a project causes an increase in the daily
V/C value of 0.01 or greater if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without
project conditions; and the segment continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis
conditions.
Related Projects
To account for planned projects within the study area, the City of Anaheim has identified six related
projects located in the vicinity of the study area. The related projects included in this study are
described in Table 18. The related projects are expected to generate approximately 8,806 daily trips,
including 765 AM peak hour trips and 789 PM peak hour trips. The geographic distribution and the
traffic assignment for the related projects were incorporated into the base Year 2011 traffic volumes.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 116 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 18: Related Projects Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Project Land Use Size Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total 1 Colony Park 410 - 418 E. Santa Ana Street Multi-Family Residential 62 DU 1,244 20 76 96 78 42 121 2 Colony Park 518 - 538 S. Anaheim Boulevard Multi-Family Residential 36 DU 209 3 13 16 13 6 19 3 Colony Park 407 - 425 S. Anaheim Boulevard Multi-Family Residential 52 DU 302 4 19 23 18 9 27 4 Restaurant/Brewery 336 - 338 S. Anaheim Boulevard Restaurant/ Brewery 7.825 TSF 995 47 43 90 51 36 87 5 Packard House 440 S. Anaheim Boulevard Retail/Restaurant Development 42.766 TSF 3,714 175 162 336 192 134 326 6 Residential Development 700 E. South Street Multi-Family Residential 93 DU 618 9 38 47 37 20 58 Total Trip Generation 8,806 339 426 765 479 309 789 Notes: DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet Source: City of Anaheim, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 117
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Ambient Traffic Growth
Ambient traffic growth was estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1 percent to the Existing
(Year 2011) traffic counts over four years. The Future Year 2015 No Project condition includes
ambient traffic growth and related project trips.
Project Traffic Generation
The vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were estimated. Table 19 summarizes the
breakdown of trips generated by each proposed land use, including the size of each land use and the
applicable rates. The proposed project would result in a net total of approximately 2,301 new daily
trips, including 241 new AM peak hour trips and 231 new PM peak hour trips.
Table 19: Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE
Code Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total
220 Apartment 220 DU 1,463 22 90 112 88 48 136
814 Specialty Retail 18.9 TSF 838 62 67 129 53 42 95
Total Trip Generation 2,301 84 157 241 141 90 231
Notes:
DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition.
Existing Year 2011 Traffic Conditions
For project area intersections, a summary of the AM peak hour level of service analysis results for the
Existing No Project, Existing Plus Related Projects, and Existing Plus Related Plus Project is
provided in Table 20. The PM peak hour results are presented in Table 21. As shown in Table 20
and Table 21, all study intersections in the project area are operating at LOS C or better for all
scenarios with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. Without the project, this intersection is operating at LOS D in the PM peak hour. The
addition of the project will cause the intersection to worsen to LOS E. Therefore, the project will
create a significant impact at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. To reduce this project impact, Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 is provided in Section 16
a) below.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 118 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 20: Existing Year 2011 No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project - AM Peak Hour LOS Results Existing Year 2011 Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects Existing Year 2011+ Related Projects + Project Intersection Signal Control V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in V/C V/C LOS Change in V/C Project Impact 1 Anaheim Boulevard & Sycamore Street Signalized 0.332 A 0.341 A 0.009 0.351 A 0.019 No 2 Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 20.3 s C 21.5 s C 1.2 s 28.7 s C 8.4 s No 3 Anaheim Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.533 A 0.576 A 0.043 0.591 A 0.058 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.480 A 0.508 A 0.028 0.519 A 0.039 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard & Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.520 A 0.567 A 0.047 0.577 A 0.057 No 6 Lemon Street & Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.3 s A 7.3 s A 0.0 s 7.4 s A 0.1 s No 7 Harbor Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.679 B 0.696 B 0.017 0.709 C 0.030 No 8 Clementine Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.305 A 0.315 A 0.010 0.320 A 0.015 No 9 Lemon Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.349 A 0.361 A 0.012 0.406 A 0.057 No 10 Olive Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.362 A 0.389 A 0.027 0.398 A 0.036 No 11 East Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.611 B 0.620 B 0.009 0.618 B 0.007 No 12 Harbor Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.575 A 0.575 A 0.000 0.578 A 0.003 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 119 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 21: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS Results Existing Year 2011 Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects + Project Intersection Signal Control V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in V/C V/C LOS Change in V/C Project Impact 1 Anaheim Boulevard & Sycamore Street Signalized 0.414 A 0.421 A 0.007 0.428 A 0.014 No 2 Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 40.8 s D 44.5 s D 3.7 s 66.0 s E 25.2 s YES 3 Anaheim Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.601 B 0.607 B 0.006 0.632 B 0.031 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.571 A 0.610 B 0.039 0.616 B 0.045 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard & Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.518 A 0.596 A 0.078 0.605 B 0.087 No 6 Lemon Street & Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.8 s A 7.8 s A 0.0 s 7.8 s A 0.0 s No 7 Harbor Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.750 C 0.763 C 0.013 0.772 C 0.022 No 8 Clementine Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.324 A 0.337 A 0.013 0.346 A 0.022 No 9 Lemon Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.372 A 0.381 A 0.009 0.424 A 0.052 No 10 Olive Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.391 A 0.409 A 0.018 0.414 A 0.023 No 11 East Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.741 C 0.750 C 0.009 0.755 C 0.014 No 12 Harbor Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.639 B 0.639 B 0.000 0.641 B 0.002 No Notes: s = Stop Sign controlled intersection. Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
120 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
For roadway segments, a summary of the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios
and level of service (LOS) results for the Existing Year 2011 condition is provided in Table 22. The
analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in November 2011 and February 2012. All arterial
segments currently operate at an acceptable level of service in the Existing Year 2011 conditions.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 121 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 22: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Existing Year 2011 No Project Existing Year 2011 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 4D 37,500 17,421 0.465 A 17,791 0.474 A 0.010 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Sycamore Street 4D 37,500 18,777 0.501 A 19,187 0.512 A 0.011 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Cypress Street 4D 37,500 19,604 0.523 A 20,574 0.549 A 0.026 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 19,455 0.519 A 19,965 0.532 A 0.014 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Broadway 4D 37,500 19,784 0.528 A 20,244 0.540 A 0.012 No Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 2U 12,500 889 0.071 A 2,339 0.187 A 0.116 No Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2U 12,500 2,047 0.164 A 2,877 0.230 A 0.066 No Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 25,442 0.678 B 25,562 0.682 B 0.003 No Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 6D 56,300 25,433 0.452 A 26,243 0.466 A 0.014 No Lincoln Avenue East of Clementine Street 6D 56,300 23,960 0.426 A 24,770 0.440 A 0.014 No Lincoln Avenue East of Lemon Street 6D 56,300 22,865 0.406 A 23,095 0.410 A 0.004 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 122 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 22 (cont.): Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Existing Year 2011 No Project Existing Year 2011 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Lincoln Avenue East of Anaheim Boulevard 6D 56,300 22,366 0.397 A 22,826 0.405 A 0.008 No Lincoln Avenue East of Olive Street 6D 56,300 20,638 0.367 A 21,098 0.375 A 0.008 No Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 123
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Opening Year 2015 Analysis
This section summarizes the traffic analysis level of service results for study intersections and arterial
segments in the Future Year 2015 conditions. For project area intersections, a summary of the AM
peak hour level of service analysis results for the Existing No Project, Existing Plus Related Projects,
and Existing Plus Related Plus Project is provided in Table 23. The PM peak hour results are
presented in Table 24.
Table 23: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - AM Peak Hour LOS Results
Future Year
2015 No
Project
Future Year
2015 With
Project
Intersection
Signal
Control V/C LOS V/C LOS
Change
in V/C
Project
Impact
1 Anaheim Boulevard &
Sycamore Street Signalized 0.351 A 0.357 A 0.006 No
2 Anaheim Boulevard &
Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 23.1 s C 27.8 s C 4.7 s No
3 Anaheim Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.560 A 0.567 A 0.007 No
4 Anaheim Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.502 A 0.508 A 0.006 No
5 Anaheim Boulevard &
Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.544 A 0.549 A 0.005 No
6 Lemon Street &
Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.6 s A 7.8 s A 0.2 s No
7 Harbor Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.712 C 0.721 C 0.009 No
8 Clementine Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.317 A 0.318 A 0.001 No
9 Lemon Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.385 A 0.410 A 0.025 No
10 Olive Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.381 A 0.386 A 0.005 No
11 East Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.636 B 0.631 B -0.005 No
12 Harbor Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.587 A 0.588 A 0.001 No
Notes:
s = Stop Sign controlled intersection.
Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
124 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 24: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS Results
Future Year
2015 No
Project
Future Year
2015 With
Project
Intersection
Signal
Control V/C LOS V/C LOS
Change
in V/C
Project
Impact
1 Anaheim Boulevard &
Sycamore Street Signalized 0.437 A 0.444 A 0.007 No
2 Anaheim Boulevard &
Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 51.0 s D 79.1 s E 28.1 s Yes
3 Anaheim Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.629 B 0.654 B 0.025 No
4 Anaheim Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.630 B 0.637 B 0.007 No
5 Anaheim Boulevard &
Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.614 B 0.623 B 0.009 No
6 Lemon Street &
Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.8 s A 7.9 s A 0.1 s No
7 Harbor Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.791 C 0.800 C 0.009 No
8 Clementine Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.347 A 0.356 A 0.009 No
9 Lemon Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.393 A 0.436 A 0.043 No
10 Olive Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.424 A 0.429 A 0.005 No
11 East Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.777 C 0.783 C 0.006 No
12 Harbor Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.662 B 0.664 B 0.002 No
Notes:
s = Stop Sign controlled intersection.
Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
As shown in Table 23 and Table 24, all study intersections in the project area are operating at LOS C
or better, with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. Without the project, this intersection is operating at LOS D in the PM peak hour. The
addition of the project will cause the intersection to worsen to LOS E in the PM peak hour.
Therefore, the project will create a significant impact at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and
Cypress Street during the PM peak hour. To reduce this potential project impact, Mitigation Measure
TRAN-1 is provided in Section 16 a) below.
For project-area roadway segments, a summary of the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity
(V/C) ratios and level of service (LOS) results for the Future Year 2015 condition is provided in
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 125
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 25. The analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in November 2011 and February 2012.
All arterial segments are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the Future Year 2015
conditions.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 126 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 25: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Future Year 2015 No Project Future Year 2015 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 4D 37,500 18,128 0.483 A 19,378 0.517 A 0.033 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Sycamore Street 4D 37,500 19,539 0.521 A 20,829 0.555 A 0.034 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Cypress Street 4D 37,500 20,400 0.544 A 22,250 0.593 A 0.049 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 20,245 0.540 A 24,275 0.647 B 0.107 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Broadway 4D 37,500 20,587 0.549 A 24,567 0.655 B 0.106 No Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 2U 12,500 925 0.074 A 2,375 0.190 A 0.116 No Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2U 12,500 2,130 0.170 A 2,960 0.237 A 0.066 No Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 26,475 0.706 C 26,595 0.709 C 0.003 No Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 6D 56,300 26,466 0.470 A 29,036 0.516 A 0.046 No Lincoln Avenue East of Clementine Street 6D 56,300 24,933 0.443 A 27,503 0.489 A 0.046 No Lincoln Avenue East of Lemon Street 6D 56,300 23,793 0.423 A 25,783 0.458 A 0.035 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 127 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 25 (cont.): Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Future Year 2015 No Project Future Year 2015 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Lincoln Avenue East of Anaheim Boulevard 6D 56,300 23,274 0.413 A 24,614 0.437 A 0.024 No Lincoln Avenue East of Olive Street 6D 56,300 21,476 0.381 A 22,816 0.405 A 0.024 No Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
128 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Site Access
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided at two access driveways; one driveway would be
located on Cypress Street (Driveway 1) and a second driveway would be located on Lemon Street
(Driveway 2). The two driveways are proposed to be unsignalized. Driveway 1 would serve as the
main access point, feeding directly into the proposed parking structure. Driveway 2, located along
Lemon Street, serves as the secondary access point, with more direct access to the surface parking
spaces. A detailed analysis of site access is provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, located in
Appendix G. The two access driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of LOS A or
better during the AM and PM peak hours for the Existing Year 2011 and the Future Year 2015 for
both the No Project and With Project conditions.
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The potential impacts to the circulation
system have been identified in the analysis provided above. The proposed project would have less
than significant impacts to pedestrian, bicycle paths, and mass transit in the project area. Project area
roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS for both the Existing Year 2011 and the Opening
Year 2015 scenarios with and without the proposed project. All project area intersections would
operate at acceptable levels of service for the Existing Year 2011 and the Opening Year 2015 AM and
PM peak hour scenarios with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress
Street. This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E with the proposed project for the PM peak
hour in the Existing Year 2011 and in the Opening Year 2015 scenario, which is a significant impact
to this intersection. Converting the intersection to a signalized intersection would mitigate this
impact. However, due to the location of this intersection, adding a signal may not be feasible and
would be inconsistent with the Downtown Anaheim Guide to Development. One option would be to
redirect traffic by allowing only right-turn movements on the east and west legs. Accordingly,
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant.
MM TRAN-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall
construct a median diverter on Anaheim Boulevard at Cypress Street, including all
appropriate signage and striping. This median diverter shall allow left turns in the
northbound and southbound directions of Anaheim Boulevard onto Cypress Street,
but shall prohibit left turns and through movements eastbound and westbound on
Cypress Street.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 129
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, the potential impact would be reduced to
less than significant. In both the Existing 2011 scenario and the Future Year 2015 scenario, the With
Project condition in the PM peak hour would be LOS E before mitigation. Following the
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS
B in the PM peak hour for both Existing 2011 and Future Year 2015 scenarios.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The intersections within the City of Anaheim that are subject to the
County’s Congestion Management Program are indicated in the City’s General Plan Circulation
Element. Based on a review of the Circulation Element, none of the project area’s intersections are
included in the Congestion Management Program. Therefore, impacts associated with the Congestion
Management Program would be less than significant.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project would consist of a 4-story multi-family residential building and
related facilities. The structures would be consistent with the heights of nearby structures and would
not affect air traffic patterns. The relatively small scale of the development would ensure that the
proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in traffic levels for air traffic. Therefore,
no impact associated with air traffic patterns would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation of two access driveways, and would
require the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, which would prohibit left turns at the
intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street. The site plan for the proposed project will be
reviewed by City Staff to ensure that no traffic safety hazards would be generated by the proposed
project, including the location of the access driveways. The restrictions on left-turn movements
outlined in Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would not result in an increase in traffic hazards associated
with the intersection. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous design features would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project’s access driveways are
expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The proposed project plans will be reviewed by
City Staff to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the project site based on the City’s
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
130 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
design requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less
than significant.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include any roadway improvements
that would affect existing public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or would otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or program related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, impacts associated with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 131
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
17. Utilities and Service Systems
The following is based in part on a February 29, 2012 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the proposed project by the project engineer, KHR Associates (Appendix E, Hydrology),
as well as a June 25, 2012 sewer study letter report authored by the City of Anaheim Department of
Public Works (Appendix I, Utilities and Service Systems).
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the
generation of wastewater. As described in Section 17b, the proposed project will generate
approximately 36,120 gallons per day (0.04 million gallons per day [mgd]). The existing Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater facilities that serve the project site currently have a
surplus capacity of approximately 220 mgd. This surplus capacity is required to be in accordance
with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The addition of wastewater by the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the OCSD facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would
result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Water Facilities
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Existing water mains in the streets adjacent
to and currently serving the project site include an 18-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) water line in
Lincoln Avenue, a 16-inch and 10-inch DIP in Anaheim Boulevard, a 12-inch DIP line in Cypress
Street, and a 12-inch DIP line in Lemon Street. The project will be required to connect to existing
water lines located in the arterial streets. During the building permitting process, the fire flow
requirements and the commercial water demands will be submitted and the capacity of the existing
water distribution system to supply the peak flow rate will be checked. This information will be used
to verify the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands for fire
flow. In the unlikely event that any off-site improvements are needed to serve the project, potential
significant impacts may occur. These off-site improvements shall be provided in accordance with
Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations and implemented as a condition of
approval for the project to reduce the potential impact. All requests for new water services or fire
lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire
lines, will be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
132 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MM USS-1 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer/owner shall submit to the
Public Utilities Water Engineering 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 confirm the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated
water demands. In the unlikely event that off-site water system improvements are
required to serve the project, they shall be provided in accordance with Rule No.
15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater in the City of Anaheim is collected by gravity sewers
owned, operated, and maintained by the City. Existing sewer lines in the streets adjacent to the
project site include a 15-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) in Lincoln Avenue, a 12-inch VCP in
Anaheim Boulevard, a 15-inch VCP in Lemon Street, and a sewer line of unknown size in Cypress
Street. According to the City’s Public Works Department, these existing facilities would be adequate
to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the proposed project. No further sewer studies
would be required and the proposed project would only be required to pay a sewer impact fee.
The wastewater is then transported by trunk sewers to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
Plant 1 located in the City of Fountain Valley and/or Plant 2 located in the City of Huntington Beach.
Plant 1 and Plant 2 provide primary and secondary treatment for an average dry weather flow (DWF)
of 83 and 147 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), respectively. Plant 1 has a design
capacity of 174 mgd, while Plant 2 has a design capacity of 276 mgd. Both wastewater treatment
plants have design capacities that exceed their current utilization, with Plant 1 presently having a 91
mgd surplus capacity and Plant 2 having a 129 surplus capacity. Combined, both Plant 1 and Plant 2
currently have a 220 mgd combined surplus capacity.
The proposed Project would include uses that would generate effluent requiring wastewater treatment
at OCSD Plant 1 and/or Plant 2. Residential dwellings within a building of five units or more
produce 156 gpd of wastewater, while commercial/store uses generate 100 gpd/1000 sq ft (Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, ND). Based upon the proposed project’s 220 residential units
and 18,000 sq ft of commercial/retail spaces, the project would generate approximately 36,120
gallons of wastewater per day (34,320 gpd for residential plus 1,800 gpd for commercial/retail).
Compared to the roughly 230 mgd of wastewater that OCSD Plant 1 and Plant 2 currently treat, as
well as their approximately 220 mgd combined surplus capacity, the proposed project’s contribution
of wastewater would be nominal and could be treated at these existing wastewater treatment facilities
without the construction of new or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts associated
with wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 133
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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. As previously discussed, the proposed project would include two
Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and four MaxWell IV drywells. In the existing
condition, the Lemon Street catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete pipe, and
the Lincoln Avenue catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete pipe, have been
deemed capable of adequately providing drainage from the project site (KHR Associates 2008). The
proposed BMPs, however, would greatly reduce the need for these existing drainage features, as these
features would only be needed during large storm events when stormwater runoff exceeds the
capacity of the Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells. Construction
of these Treatment Control BMPs would occur concurrently on the project site with construction of
the proposed project, whose environmental effects are analyzed in this IS/MND. No additional
environmental impacts, above those already examined in this IS/MND, are anticipated. Therefore,
impacts associated with the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities would be less than
significant.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim receives its water from two main sources: (1)
the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD, and (2) imported water
from the MWD. Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and imported
water is delivered to the City through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection.
In addition to groundwater supplies, the City of Anaheim uses imported water from MWD to
supplement its water supplies. Per Table 3-2 on page 3-6 of the UWMP, MWD forecasts to have a
surplus ranging from approximately 1.48 million afy to roughly 2.1 million afy during average year
conditions during 2015 through 2035. These imported water supplies would supplement the
groundwater supplies that are used by the City and the proposed project, further reducing the project’s
groundwater use.
As previously discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is
consistent with the existing City of Anaheim General Plan “Mixed Use” land use designation, and as
such, the development of the would be considered consistent with the City’s future projected water
demand. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supplies being available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources are considered less than significant.
While less than significant impacts on available water supplies have been identified, the following
conditions of approval will be incorporated into the project to ensure that water conservation
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
134 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
measures are incorporated into the design of the proposed project so that water supplies remain
reliable into the future.
• Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented prior to final building and zoning
inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during project operation), the property owner/
developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department plans for review and approval which
shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. Among the water conservation
measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the
extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems.
- Use of waterway recirculation systems.
- Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals.
- Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves.
- Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use
moisture sensors.
- Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels.
- Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water-using
appliances.
- Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest.
- Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.
- Use of water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.
• The City shall continue to collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD), its member agencies, and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to
ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecasted that water
demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation
Ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code, §10.18), as prescribed, to require mandatory
conservation measures as authorized by Sections 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate.
• Prior to issuance of each building permit the property owner/developer shall submit an
irrigation plan in which all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function
properly with reclaimed water, once a system is available.
• Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for
reclaimed water system requirements and specific water conservation measures to be
incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans.
• Prior to issuance of building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance
with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is
in compliance with the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325).
• Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 135
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water
Conservation Measures.)
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 previously discussed, both OCSD wastewater treatment facilities
that would serve the proposed project have design capacities that exceed their current utilization, with
Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley presently having a 91 mgd surplus capacity and Plant 2 in the
City of Huntington Beach having a 129 surplus capacity. Combined, both Plant 1 and Plant 2
currently have a 220 mgd combined surplus capacity.
The proposed Project would include uses that would generate effluent requiring wastewater treatment
at OCSD Plant 1 and/or Plant 2. Residential dwellings within a building of five units or more
produce 156 gpd of wastewater, while commercial/store uses generate 100 gpd/1000 sq ft. Based
upon the proposed project’s 220 residential units and 18,000 sq ft of commercial/retail spaces, the
project would generate approximately 36,120 gallons of wastewater per day (34,320 gpd for
residential plus 1,800 gpd for commercial/retail). Compared to the roughly 230 mgd of wastewater
that OCSD Plant 1 and Plant 2 currently treat, as well as their approximately 220 mgd combined
surplus capacity, the proposed project’s contribution of wastewater would be nominal and could be
treated at these existing wastewater treatment facilities without the construction of new or expansion
existing facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less
than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. Before commencing construction of the proposed project, the 25,000
sq ft commercial building and associated parking lot would require demolition, with all non-
hazardous demolition debris transported to the appropriate landfill facility by Republic Services .
Following collection, the non-hazardous demolition materials would be sorted for recyclables and
disposed of at either the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department’s (IWMD)
Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, or Prima Deschecha Landfill.
Collectively, these landfill facilities encompasses 2,820 acres, including 1,653 permitted acres for
disposal. These facilities are permitted to accept a combined maximum of 23,500 tons of waste per
day, and have a combined remaining capacity of 185 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2012).
Any hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, including asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or
contaminated soils, found either within the existing building or on the project site would be removed,
transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Refer to the
Remedial Action Plan (Appendix I, Utilities and Service Systems) completed for the proposed project
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
136 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
for further information regarding demolition, removal, transporting, and disposal of hazardous or
potentially hazardous materials.
According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
multifamily residential land uses generate an estimated 1.17 tons of waste per dwelling unit per year
(CalRecycle 2010b), while commercial retail land uses create an estimated 0.0024 tons of waste per
square foot per year (CalRecycle 2011). Using these measures, the proposed project’s 220 residential
units would generate approximately 257.4 tons of waste per year, while the project’s 18,000 sq ft of
retail commercial space would create 43.2 tons per year. With Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, Frank
R. Bowerman Landfill, or Prima Deschecha Landfill permitted to accept a maximum 23,500 tons of
waste per day, or over seven million tons annually, the proposed project’s estimated contribution of
300.6 tons per year would be considered nominal. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste
would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply will all federal,
State, and local agency regulations regarding solid waste. IWMD is required to obtain permits to
maintain operations at their three active landfills. These permits include, but are not limited to, a
solid waste facilities permit, waste discharge permit, a stormwater discharge permit, and various
permits to construct and operate gas management systems. As part of standard procedure, IWMD
evaluates new projects within its jurisdiction for compliance with CEQA and all applicable statutes
and regulations, ensuring that any potential impact or inconsistency is satisfactorily mitigated and
resolved.
Additionally, under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the City of Anaheim is
required to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the
amount of solid waste entering landfills. Local jurisdictions are mandated to divert at least 50-percent
of their solid waste generation into recycling. As of 2010, City of Anaheim is diverting
approximately 50-percent of the solid waste that its residents and businesses generate (CalRecycle
2010a). The City of Anaheim continues to exceed the minimum solid waste diversion rate of 50
percent by achieving a 63 percent diversion rate in the last reporting period of 2010. As such, the
City is meeting its AB 939 goal. Waste generated by the proposed project would enter the City’s
waste stream but would not substantial affect diversion rates, as the project’s waste generation would
represent a nominal percentage of the waste created within the City. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 137
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously discussed in Section 3.4,
Biological Resources, the ornamental trees and landscaping currently found on the project site lacks
any cohesiveness and does not constitute natural, native habitat. The highly disturbed nature of the
project site and the surrounding urbanized area creates an unsuitable environment for any plant or
wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Due to the previous
development of the project site and the complete lack of native habitat, sensitive plant or wildlife
species are not expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with candidate,
sensitive, or special status species would occur.
Additionally, per Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, although the existing onsite 25,000 sq ft building
was the work of master architectural firm Parkinson and Parkinson, It is not of a significant design
and does not embody characteristics of a significant type, period, or method of construction. The
property also does not have the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to
prehistory or history. The building is not a historic property under Section 106 of the Nation Historic
Preservation Act, because it is not eligible for any of the National Register Criterion. It also has been
determined ineligible for National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey
evaluation.
The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the existing historic elements found in the
surrounding Anaheim Colony Historic District and to respect the area’s historical heritage. The
inclusion of the proposed project in the neighborhood would not have a significant impact on the
historic buildings within the viewshed due to the extensive alterations that have already substantially
altered the viewshed. The changes in mass and scale already present in the neighborhood would not
be affected by the proposed project.
Furthermore, due to the previous development activity that has occurred on the project site, surface
and subsurface soils have been graded, excavated, and otherwise disturbed. As such, the probability
of discovery of a significant archeological or prehistorical resource is small. However, the project
site is within the ancient floodplain of the Santa Ana River and Pleistocene deposits can potentially be
encountered at depth. Thus, impacts to significant paleontological resources in undisturbed surface or
subsurface Pleistocene sediments is considered moderate. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through
CULT-9 would be necessary to prevent impacts should any currently unknown historical or
prehistorical resource be unearthed during construction activities.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
138 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. In the general vicinity of the project site,
there are six related projects. All six related projects are located south and southeast of the project
site and located from 0.25 mile to 0.8 mile from the project site. The related projects are identified in
Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic in this Initial Study and include a combined total of 243 multiple
family residential units and 50,591 sq ft of retail and restaurant uses.
Following is a brief discussion of the potential for the proposed project in combination with the
related projects to result in cumulative environmental impacts.
Aesthetics
The proposed project is located along South Anaheim Boulevard as well as some of the related
projects. Development along the South Anaheim Boulevard corridor will be viewed by motorists
traveling along South Anaheim Boulevard. Because this area is within the Anaheim Colony Historic
District, visual character of the new development is important. Cumulatively, the combined visual
effect of the development of the proposed project and related project could result in significant visual
impacts. However, since the proposed project has borrowed stylistic elements from a nearby historic
building, the elements create a compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of
the complex borrows window and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in
the Anaheim Colony Historic District displays a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the
neighborhood. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a potential cumulatively visual effect within
the Anaheim Colony Historic District is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable and
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The proposed project and related project are not located on existing agriculture or forestry land and
therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on these resources.
Air Quality
A discussion of cumulative air quality impacts is provided in Section 3.3 in this Initial Study. As
stated, the proposed project could result in significant emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) during construction activities and could contribute to the cumulative increase in VOCs.
Since the proposed project includes mitigation measures to reduce VOCs to less than the threshold,
the project’s contribution of cumulative VOCs is considered less than cumulatively considerable,
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 139
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cultural Resources
The implementation of the proposed project and related project could result in impacts on historical
resources due to the location of the projects being located within the Anaheim Colony Historic
District. As discussed above, the proposed project includes design concepts to reduce the project’s
contribution to historical impacts to less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
The proposed project and related projects could result in impacts to cultural, paleontological, and
human remain resources. The proposed project includes mitigation measures to reduce its effect on
these resources to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts on
these resources is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Geology and Soils
The implementation of the proposed project and related projects are located in an area of seismic
activity; however, the required building codes are adequate to reduce potential geology and soil
impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative geology
and soil impacts is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects will increase greenhouse gas
emissions. This increase will contribute to the overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions within
the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project’s generation of greenhouse gas emissions is less
than the screening threshold, and is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project and the related project could result in an increase in impacts associated with
hazardous materials. The project site includes contaminated soils classified as hazardous materials.
As described in Section 3.8d of this Initial Study, mitigation measures that require the removal of the
onsite contaminated soils will need to be implemented to reduce the project’s potential impact
associated with contaminated soils. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will
reduce the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project and related projects are expected to cumulatively increase the conveyance of
stormwater to the existing storm drain system. The project includes best management practices that
will decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
140 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
with four drywells and an increase of permeable surfaces on the project site. The project’s
contribution of stormwater to the existing storm drain system is less than cumulatively considerable,
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed project and the related projects have
the potential to result in significant impacts to water quality. As required by existing regulations, the
proposed project will be identifying BMPs as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). These BMPs will include straw bales and vehicle tires wash down areas to reduce water
quality impacts during construction activities. The implementation of the BMPs will reduce the
project’s contribution to potential significant cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project and the related projects have the
potential to result in significant impacts to water quality. The proposed project includes roof drains,
area drains, and catch basins to capture stormwater and direct the stormwater to Bio Clean Nutrient
Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by the MaxWell IV drywells. The
implementation of these design features will reduce the project’s potential contribution to long-term
water quality impacts to less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Land Use and Planning
The implementation of the proposed project and related projects could result in impacts associated
with land use plans, policies, or regulations. The proposed project will be consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Plan; however, the project will require modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate the proposed mixed use project. In addition, the project design features allow the
project to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and guidelines of the Anaheim Colony Historic
District Preservation Plan and The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines. As
discussed in Section 3.10b of this Initial Study, the proposed design features associated with the
project will result in the project to be consistent with the applicable land use plans, policies, and
regulations. The proposed project’s contribution to potential cumulative land use impacts is
considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Mineral Resources
The proposed project and related project are not located on existing mineral resource areas and
therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on mineral resources
Noise
Based on the distance of the nearest related project to the project site (i.e., 0.25 mile), noise levels
from construction activities at the related project sites are not expected to contribute to construction
noise levels on land uses immediately surrounding the project site.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 141
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cumulative long-term operation noise impacts were evaluated and discussed in Section 3.12a in this
Initial Study. The evaluation of offsite vehicular noise levels included the proposed project, the
addition of the related projects, as well as the inclusion of a growth rate. As discussed, long-term
cumulative noise impacts off the project site would result in less than significant noise impacts.
Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative vehicular noise levels off the project site would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative noise levels would result in potential noise impacts on the proposed multiple family
residential uses on the project site. The cumulative noise levels will require the implementation of
noise attenuation design features for the residential units facing Lincoln Avenue to reduce indoor
noise levels to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. With the implementation of the
proposed noise attenuation features, the project’s contribution to cumulative vehicular noise impacts
on the project site would be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Population and Housing
The proposed project and related project will increase the population and housing within the City.
The increase in housing will be less than 500 multiple family residences and less than 1,000 people.
This increase in housing would be a small fraction of the 27,148 residential units projected to be
remaining to be developed within the City. The cumulative increase in population and housing within
the project vicinity would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the project’s
contribution to an impact on population and housing is considered less than cumulatively
considerably, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Public Services
The proposed project and related project will increase the population and housing within the City.
The increase in housing will be less than 500 multiple family residences and less than 1,000 people.
Both the proposed project and related projects are located in the vicinity of the Downtown area, and
therefore, would be able to be served in accordance with the response time goals of objectives of the
police and fire departments. Therefore, the proposed project and related projects would result in a
less than significant cumulative environmental impact associated with police and fire because no new
or physically altered police or fire structural facilities would be required.
The proposed project and related project could result in cumulative impacts to school and park
facilities; however, these potential impacts would be less than significant due to the regulated
development fees that are required of new development for schools and parks. Therefore, the
implementation of the project would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts on schools
and parks.
The proposed project and related projects could result in cumulative impacts to library services;
however, these potential impacts would be less than significant due to the nominal increase of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
142 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
projected population of approximately 0.3 percent of City residents served by the Anaheim Public
Library system. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential contribution to the Central Library’s
service population is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Recreation
Implementation of the proposed project and related project could result in approximately 1,000
additional residents that could increase the use of existing park facilities. This cumulative increase in
park use would be less than significant due to the regulated development fees that are required for
new development for parks. Therefore, the project’s contribution to an impact on park and
recreational facilities is considered less than cumulatively considerably, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
Transportation/Traffic
Cumulative long-term traffic volumes were evaluated and discussed in Section 16 in this Initial
Study. The analysis included vehicle trips generated by the proposed project and related projects. As
discussed, cumulative traffic levels could result in the South Anaheim Boulevard/Cypress Street
intersection operating at a level of service of LOS E which is considered a significant impact. The
project includes Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 to reduce the potential significant impact to less than
significant. All other analyzed intersections or roadway segments would experience less than
significant impacts due to cumulative traffic volumes. Therefore, with the project mitigation, the
proposed project’s contribution to cumulative traffic impacts is considered less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
The implementation of the proposed project and related project will result in the generation of
wastewater and storm water and result in the demand for water. The proposed project will not
contribute to a need for sewer, storm water, or water distribution facilities in addition to those that
will be constructed with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
impacts to distribution facilities that are considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less
than cumulatively significant.
In addition, the proposed project and related projects will increase the generation of wastewater and
therefore contribution to total flow at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater
facilities. However, given that the OCSD have a surplus capacity of approximately 220 million
gallons per day, the additional wastewater generated by the approximately 500 cumulative residential
units and additional commercial uses would be nominal and would not exceed the OCSD’s surplus
capacity. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution of wastewater to the OCSD’s treatment
facilities is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 143
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Finally, the proposed project and related projects will increase the generation of solid waste to the
Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) landfill facilities. These
facilities are permitted to accept over seven million tons annually. Although the proposed project and
related projects will increase the generation of solid waste, the amount of solid waste is considered
nominal and would represent a less than significant effect on the existing IWMD landfill facilities.
Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution of solid waste to the IWMD landfill facilities is
considered to be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout Section 3.3,
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, of this IS, with the incorporation of previously identified
Mitigation Measures, all environmental impacts associated with construction and/or operation of the
proposed project would be less than significant, and therefore would not have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or indirectly, on human beings.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 145
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 4: REFERENCES
AirNav, LLC. 2012. Airport Search Results. Website: http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-
search. Accessed January 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2012a. Anaheim Fire Department Website. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/sectionnew.asp?id=73. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2012b. Anaheim Police Department Website. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=124. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2011(Updated). City of Anaheim Municipal Code. November 15 (Updated).
Anaheim, City of. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
Anaheim, City of. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. May.
Anaheim, City of. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR. May.
Anaheim, City of. 2003. The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines. April 3.
http://www.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/ColonyDesignGuidelines.pdf
Anaheim, City of. 1999. Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan.
http://www.anaheim.net/com_dev/ed/pdf/HistoricPreservationPlan.PDF.
Anaheim City School District. 2012. Anaheim City School District Website. Website:
http://www.acsd.k12.ca.us/. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim City School District. 2011. 2010-2030 Facilities Master Plan.
Anaheim Union High School District. 2012. Anaheim Union High School District Website.
Website: http://www.auhsd.us/. Accessed March 2012.
CalEEMod. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2011.1.1. Website:
http://caleemod.com/. Accessed April 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. August 2010. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed
Land Use Projects. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating
and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
146 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Air Resources Board. 2012. Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed April 2012.
California Air Resources Board. 2011a. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2011b. Area Designation Maps / State and National. 2011 State
Area Designations. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. September 8. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010b (Updated). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 2000 to 2008.
May 12 (Updated). Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010c. Greenhouse Gas Inventory - 2020 Forecast. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010d. Off-road Emissions Inventory. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm. Accessed February 2012.
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Vinyl Chloride. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/vc/vc.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2008a. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
December. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2008b. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the
California Environmental Quality Act. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposal102408.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and
2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website:
www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. Accessed December
18, 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 147
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Air Resources Board. 1998. Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov\regact\regup98.htm#diesltac. Accessed December 2011.
California Climate Change Center. 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California:
A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center. July. Website:
http://www.scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/climate_change/assessing_risks.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Department of Conservation. 2011. Orange County Important Farmland 2010 map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ora10.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2004. Williamson Act Parcels map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDF/Orange/orange_2004.jpg.
California Department of Education. 2010. District and Student Enrollment by Grade: Anaheim
Union High School District. October 22. Website:
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrGr2&cYear=201
0-11&cSelect=3066431--
ANAHEIM%20UNION%20HIGH&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Enrollment&m
yTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B. Accessed March 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Orange County FHSZ Map.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_orange.php.
California Department of Public Health. 2010. California Indoor Radon Levels, Sorted by Zip Code.
May . Website:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRadonDatabas
e.pdf. Accessed April 2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2012. .Active Landfill
Profiles.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=30&FACID=3
0-AB-0035. Accessed April 2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2011. Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm. Accessed April
2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010a.
Diversion/Disposal Rate Report for Anaheim.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/tools/mars/JurDrDtl.asp?Flag=1&Ju=15&YR=2010
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010b. Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates for Residential Developments.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Residential.htm. Accessed April
2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
148 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Department of Water Resources. 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future, Climate Change
Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water. September. Website:
http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Environmental Health Tracking Program. 2011. Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration.
Website: http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed December 2011.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Website:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/. Accessed December 2011.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Large IOU RPS Procurement Data 2003-2010.
Website (1): http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/; Website(2):
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B5AF672B-ABB6-4B0F-8F52-
AF78D4701677/0/CaliforniaRPSProcurementSummary20032010.xls. Accessed August
2011.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FIRM Map: Anaheim, California
(06059C0133J). December 3.
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=10644&O_Y=7762&O_ZM=
0.116908&O_SX=877&O_SY=605&O_DPI=400&O_TH=21568846&O_EN=21607889&O
_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14400&HT=10350&JX=1016&JY=665&MPT=0&
MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=21426169&ITEM=1&ZOOM_FIT.x=1. Accessed April 2012.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1.
Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5.
Golden State Water Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan - West Orange. August.
Governor is Office of Planning and Research. 2008. CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE:
Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
Website: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
IBI Group. 2012. Traffic Impact Analysis. March 1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed December
2011.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html. Accessed December
2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 149
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Website: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
KHR Associates. 2012. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. February 29.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. ND. Table 1: Loading for Each Class of Land Use.
Website: http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531. Accessed April
2012.
National Toxicology Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June 10, 2011. Benzene. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2011.
National Toxicology Program. 2011b. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/DieselExhaustParticulates.pdf. Accessed
December 22, 2011.
Office of the California Attorney General. 2010. Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level.
January 6. Website: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011a. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011b. Historical Data by Year. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm. Accessed February 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011c. Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.
March 10. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011d. Fact Sheet for Applying
CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/CalEEModguidance.pdf. Accessed December
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011e. Table 1, Meteorological Sites. June 8.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_Table1.html. Accessed December
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011f. AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.
August 23. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_ModelingGuidance.html. Accessed
December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder
Working Group Meeting #15. September 28. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
150 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, Appendix C. October 21, 2009. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/LST.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology. June. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/Method_final.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008b. Board Meeting Date: December 5, 2008,
Agenda 31, Interim CEQA/GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and
Plans. December. Website: http:// www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm.
Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008c. Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA
Greenhouse (GHG) Significance Threshold Document. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/attachments/2008/December/081231.exe. Accessed September
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008d. Mates III Final Report. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html. Accessed July
2011
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008e. EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-
Road). Heavy-Heavy Duty On-road Vehicles (Scenario Years 2007-2026). Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007a. Odor Detection, Mitigation and Control
Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/conferencesworkshops/OdorForum/OdorForumSummary.pdf.
Accessed April 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007b. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2000. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the
South Coast Air Basin (MATES-II). Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/matesiidf/matestoc.htm.
Accessed July 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD,
21865 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, California, 91765.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2010. National Greenhouse Gas
Inventory Data for the Period 1990-2008. Website:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbi/eng/18.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
University of California, Davis. 1997. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. 1997.
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/coprot.htm. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 151
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 (Updated). State and County Quick Facts: Anaheim, California. January
31 (Updates). Website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602000.html. Accessed
March 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology
Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition: Benzene. June 10. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology
Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition: Diesel Exhaust Particles. June
10. Website: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/DieselExhaustParticulates.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. 2005. Carbon Dioxide. September. Website:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2003. Safety and Health
Topics: Methane. Website:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.html. Accessed December
2011.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2001 (Updated). Retail and Service Buildings: How Many
Employees Are There? January 3 (Updated). Website:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/retailserv/retserv_howmanye
mpl.htm. Accessed March 2012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria
Pollutants as of August 30, 2011. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/.
Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution - Organic Gases,
Volatile Organic Compounds. Website: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. Accessed
December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011c. 2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report,
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009, EPA 430-R-11-005.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed
December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website,
Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Ozone and your Health, EPA-456/F-09-001.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/airnow/ozone-c.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Fact Sheet, Proposed Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide. July 22. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20090722fs.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
152 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009c. A Citizen’s Guide to Radon, the Guide to Protecting
Yourself and your Family from Radon, EPA 402/K-09/001. June. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/citizensguide.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009d. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in the Construction Sector. February. Website: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-
sector-report.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Particle Pollution and your Health, EPA-452/F-03-
001. Website: http://epa.gov/pm/pdfs/pm-color.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website,
Benzene. 2000. Website: http;//www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html. Accessed April
2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers
Michael Brandman Associates 153
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS
Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714.508.4100
Fax: 714.508.4110
Project Director ..................................................................................................Thomas F. Holm, AICP
Project Manager ...............................................................................................Michael Houlihan, AICP
Environmental Planner......................................................Collin Ramsey, MS, LEED Green Associate
Environmental Analyst............................................ Margaret Partridge, AICP, LEED Green Associate
Senior Editor / Publications..........................................................................................Sandra L. Tomlin
GIS/Graphics..............................................................................................................Karlee McKracken
Reprographics......................................................................................................................José Morelos
Executive Assistant ................................................................................................. Daphne Ott de Vries
Technical Subconsultants
Geology and Soils.....................................................................................Leighton and Associates, Inc.
41715 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: 951.296.0530
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................Apex Companies, LLC
6185 Cornerstone Court East, Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: 858.558.1120
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................Shaw Environmental, Inc.
4005 Port Chicago Highway
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 925.288.9898
Hydrology and Water Quality/Utilities and Service Systems ...................................KHR Associates
4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949.756.6440
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
List of Preparers Initial Study <and Mitigated Negative Declaration>
154 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Traffic and Transportation ...................................................................................................IBI Group
18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.833.5588
Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................CH2MHILL
6 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: 714.429.2000
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. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-172
LOCATION: 2300 South Lewis Street (Ponderosa Mobile and RV Park)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Joel Farkas and the property
owner is Ponderosa Anaheim Properties, LLC.
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 the
application of 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. 2014-172.
BACKGROUND: This 24.1 acre property is developed with a Recreational Vehicle
and Mobile Home park. The property is located in the Transition (T) zone and the
Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay zone. The General Plan designates the property
for Medium Density Residential land uses. Surrounding land uses include apartments,
a cemetery, and a pest control business to the north, the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to
the east across Manchester Avenue, single family homes and condominiums to the
south in the City of Orange, and single family homes to the west across Lewis Street
in the City of Orange.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide this property into two parcels.
Parcel No. 1 would consist of the existing 4.9 acre recreational vehicle (RV) park.
The remaining parcel would consist of the 19.1 acre mobile home park. Upon
subdivision, vehicular access to the mobile home park would continue to be provided
from Lewis Street and access to the recreational vehicle park would continue to be
provided from Manchester Avenue. Although no development is proposed as part of
this request, the applicant indicates that the subdivision would facilitate future
development of Parcel 1 with residential uses consistent with its General Plan
designation.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-172
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
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 and to
ensure the proposed subdivision is adequate to support existing and future development; provides
safe and orderly circulation of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the proposed site
and all streets; and does not limit or adversely affect the growth and development potential of
adjoining land. The proposed parcel map complies with these subdivision standards as well as all
applicable zoning requirements. Although the property is located in the MHP Overlay zone, the
requirements of the overlay zone do not apply to the portion of the property utilized as a
recreational vehicle park.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision because the proposed parcel
map complies with all applicable zoning requirements and the lot would be of sufficient size to
support quality development consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Tentative Parcel Map Resolution
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.
3. Tentative Parcel Map
4. Site Photographs
T (MHP)PONDEROSA MOBILE ESTATES
TMELROSE ABBYCEMETERY
RS-3S.F.R.
C-GVACANT
RM-4DUPLEX
C-GRETAIL
RM-4FOURPLEX
5 FREEW
AY
5 FREE
W
AY
S LEWIS STS
M
A
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R A
V
E
N LEWIS STW C O M P T O N A V E
N MANCHESTER AVEW SHE RR ING HAM AVE
S WINDGAP DRE. KATELLA AVE
S. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HARBOR BLVDE. GENE AUTRY WAY
2 3 0 0 South L ewis St re et
D EV No. 2 0 14-00088
Subject Property APN: 137-461-22137-451-35
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
5 FREEW
AY
5 FREE
W
AY
S LEWIS STS
M
A
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R A
V
E
N LEWIS STW C O M P T O N A V E
N MANCHESTER AVEW SHE RR ING HAM AVE
S WINDGAP DRE. KATELLA AVE
S. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HARBOR BLVDE. GENE AUTRY WAY
2 3 0 0 South L ewis St re et
D EV No. 2 0 14-00088
Subject Property APN: 137-461-22137-451-35
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2014-172 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00088)
(2300 SOUTH LEWIS STREET)
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.
2014-172 to subdivide one parcel into two parcels (herein referred to as the "Parcel Map") for
certain real property located at 2300 South Lewis 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 24.1 acres, is developed with
with a Recreational Vehicle and Mobile Home Park. The Anaheim General Plan designates the
Property for Medium Density Residential land uses. The Property is located within the
Transition (“T”) Zone. The Property is also located within the Mobile Home Park Overlay
(“MHP” ) Overlay Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Section 18.26.060 (Mobile
Home Park Overlay Zones) of Chapter 18.26 (Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zone) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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 project Parcel Map is within that class of
projects which consists of a 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 (e) 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. 2014-172, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. The proposed division, including its design and improvements, is consistent with
the Medium Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and the
zoning and development standards of the “T” (Transition) and Mobile Home Park Overlay zone
contained in Chapters18.14 and 18.26 (Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zone) of the Code;
and
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Parcel Map in
conformance with the development standards of the “T” (Transition) and Mobile Home Park
(MHP) 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, as no development is proposed as part of this request. Any future
development requests would be required to comply with the standards of the “T” (Transition)
and Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay zone; 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. 2014-172, 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 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.
- 2 - 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 regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on November 17, 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 regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on November 17, 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 17th day of November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2014-172
(DEV2014-00088)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP
1 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City
of Anaheim an easement in Manchester Drive for road, public
utilities and other public purposes. The width of the easement
shall include the existing road improvements and terminate at 10
feet back of the existing curb in the west side of the existing road.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
2 The owners of Parcel 1 and the portion of Parcel Map 2014-172
shown as "Not a Part" shall record an instrument satisfactory to the
City providing for covenants for the passage of motor vehicles and
pedestrians over and across the street, curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements existing within Parcel 1 and the portion of Parcel
Map 2014-172 shown as "Not a Part" (the "Access Area") to assure
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the Access Area is
available for use by the owners of Parcel 1 and his/her/its agents,
contractors, employees, tenants and other occupants and the guests
and invitees of such tenants and other occupants. The recorded
instrument shall be effective as of the date of recordation in the
Official Records of the County of Orange and shall continue in full
force and effect until the owner of Parcel 1 is issued a building
permit for construction of improvements thereon. Alternatively, if
the owners of Parcel 1 and the portion of Parcel Map 2014-172
shown as "Not a Part" determine that such an instrument is not
feasible, the owner of Parcel 1 shall remove and no longer use
recreational vehicles from those recreational vehicle spaces which
the Planning Director determines to be reasonably necessary to
effect compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code and the
Subdivision Map Act.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
3 An improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map to
indicate that all street improvements along Manchester Avenue
per the latest version of Public Works Standard Details 160-A and
the General Plan shall be constructed prior to final building and
zoning inspections as directed by the City Engineer for future
building or grading site development plans.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
4 An improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map to
indicate that all required public sewer, water and storm drain
improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and
zoning inspections as directed by the City Engineer for future
building or grading site development plans.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
- 5 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
5 The Parcel Map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be filed
in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
6 The legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement,
in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required
public improvements at the legal property owner’s expense. Said
agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Subdivision Section for approval by the City Attorney and City
Engineer.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
GENERAL
7 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
8 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
- 6 - PC2014-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
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: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754
LOCATION: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (M3Live Bar & Grill)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Starline Tours, represented
by Ken Kowalski. The property owner is P.A. Poon and Sons, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to operate a tour bus company with on-site
office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storage on a property developed with a
dinner theater and restaurant.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754.
BACKGROUND: This 4.9-acre property is located in the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan (SP92-2) Zone and is designated for Commercial Recreation land uses by the
General Plan. Surrounding uses include a fast food restaurant and retail building to the
north, a condominium complex and bank to the south, a condominium complex to the
east and a hotel and restaurant to the west, across Harbor Boulevard.
In July 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
dinner theater venue at this location known as Battle of the Dance. In May 2012, the
conditional use permit was amended to allow private parties; meetings and banquets;
religious services; and sporting and convention events in conjunction with the dinner
theatre; however, the business closed shortly thereafter. Prior to the closure of the
business, the City had received multiple complaints regarding the manner in which the
venue was being operated. This was largely due to the fact that the former business
operator allowed night club and concert promoters to use the venue in violation of the
conditional use permit. These unpermitted uses created several negative impacts to the
surrounding community. Complaints were generally related to loud music emanating
from the building and disruptive customers loitering in the parking lot.
In April 2014, the owner of a new business, known as M3Live, received Planning
Commission approval to change the previously-approved floor plan to allow a full-
service restaurant to operate in conjunction with the dinner theater. The new restaurant
and dinner theater reopened in September.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 3
The request to operate a tour bus facility is a result of a Code Enforcement Notice of Violation
(NOV) issued to the business owner for operating without a required conditional use permit.
Staff initially observed the tour bus company operating at this location in August 2014. Shortly
thereafter, Code Enforcement issued a NOV to the business owner demanding that all tour bus
operations cease immediately. The tour bus activities ceased soon after the NOV was issued and
the business owner agreed to stop operation until a CUP was obtained; however, on November 7,
2014, staff received a complaint from an adjacent property owner indicating that the tour bus
operator was storing and washing vehicles on the property in direct violation of the NOV. Staff
substantiated the complaint and the business owner was once again notified that all tour bus
activity was to immediately cease.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to operate a tour bus
company. Starline Tours is an established tour company headquartered in Hollywood with
multiple locations in Southern California. The proposed satellite location would include
administrative offices, ticketing and waiting areas, and storage of two full-size buses and seven
vans. Starline Tours proposes to sublease its business space from the operator of M3Live. No
physical changes to the building are proposed.
As described in the attached letter of operation, tours are reserved online, over the phone or at
local hotels. Each morning, the buses and vans would leave the subject property to pick up
customers from the local hotels and bring them back to the site to complete their ticketing and
board the appropriate bus for the tour they have purchased. The buses would leave between
9 a.m. and 10 a.m. and return to the site at approximately 6:30 p.m., after dropping off all
customers at their initial pick up point.
ANALYSIS: Transportation facilities are permitted at this location, subject to approval of a
conditional use permit to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. Although this type
of tourist-serving use would typically complement the Anaheim Resort, the site is located
adjacent to residential uses to the east and south, with some homes as close as twenty feet from
the property line. Since the opening of Battle of the Dance in 2010, adjacent residents have
complained about buses and semi-trucks idling in the rear of the property causing noise and odor
impacts. In fact, these residents have had direct conversations with the both the former and
current theater operator requesting that buses be prohibited from parking adjacent to their homes.
In response to these complaints, the recent parking management plan approved in conjunction
with M3Live specifically prohibits buses from parking adjacent to these homes and required the
owner to post the “No Bus Parking” signs that now exist along the south property line.
Staff recently received an email message from an adjacent resident, included as Attachment No.
6, opposing the request and describing recent on-site activities. The email message indicates
that Starline’s buses had been parking behind the building for the past week. The resident
claims that the buses were being cleaned on-site from approximately 6:45 a.m. to 8 a.m. using
power washing equipment and vacuums powered by generators. In addition to the noise and
disturbance described, the resident is also concerned with the exhaust resulting from the idling
of the buses adjacent to her windows. Staff shares the concerns identified in the email, and
while various conditions of approval limiting the allowed activities could be applied to the
permit, staff is not convinced that the business operator would adhere to these restrictions given
its recent decision to ignore a recently issued NOV demanding that it cease all tour bus activity.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Staff has had several conversations with both the applicant and the M3Live business owner
regarding the need to ensure that any on-site business activity does not negatively impact the
adjacent residential community. During these conversations, staff has mentioned the former
business owner’s history of violating conditions of approval to the detriment of the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff is concerned that, despite these conversations, the applicant and theater
owner ignored the Code Enforcement NOV by resuming bus operations prior to obtaining a
CUP. Further, the bus operations have been conducted in a manner that negatively impacts
nearby residents, despite knowledge of the concerns of these residents. Therefore, staff is
recommending denial of the requested CUP as there is no surety that the business owner will
adhere to conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff does not believe that the findings for a conditional use permit can be made as the proposed
use could adversely affect the adjoining land uses, as evidenced by the recent noise complaints.
If the use was approved and the business owner chose to ignore recommended conditions of
approval, the granting of the conditional use permit could be detrimental to the adjacent
residential community. The City would have to invest its resources in addressing the violations
and attempting to achieve compliance.
Should the Commission wish to approve the application, staff has prepared a draft resolution for
approval of the project. This resolution includes conditions of approval that address concerns
with the operation of the use and potential impacts to adjacent neighbors. They include a
limitation on the number of tour vehicles to be stored on site; restrictions on where the vehicles
could be parked; allowing only one tour bus company to operate on the site; and prohibitions on
the on-site washing, repair or maintenance of vehicles.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this request for a
conditional use permit since recent business activities causing noise complaints demonstrate
that the use is not compatible with, and could adversely affect, the surrounding residential uses.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Elaine Thienprasiddhi Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Denial Resolution
3. Draft Approval Resolution
4. Applicant’s Letter of Request and CUP Justification
5. Notice of Violation
6. Letter 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 website at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
7. Development Plans
8. Site Photographs
SP 92-2 (MU)DA1THEATER
SP 92-2DA1PARKINGLOT
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU
SP 92-2DA1RESTAURANT
RS-2S.F.R.
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS64 DU
SP 92-2DA1COMFORT INNMAINGATE
SP 92-2DA1RENT FOR LESS
RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU
RM-2SMOKETREETOWNHOMES123 DU
SP 92-2DA1AUTOREPAIR/SERVICE
RS-2S.F.R.
SP 92-2DA1MEDICAL OFFICE SP 92-2DA1JACK IN THE BOXRESTAURANT
SP 92-2DA1QUALITY INNMAINGATE
SP 92-2DA1BANK
SP 92-2DA1RETAIL
SP 92-2DA1RETAIL
RM-4HARBOR CLIFFAPARTMENTS130 UNITS
SP 92-2DA1HACIENDA INN& SUITES
SP 92-2DA1RETAIL
C-GFOURPLEX
RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU
CITY OF GARDEN GROVECITY OF GARDEN GROVES HARBOR BLVDW WILKEN WAY
S
WI
L
L
OWB
R
OOK
L
NS MADRID STS MALLUL DRS
S MIRA CT
S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIRW. KATELLA AVE
S. WEST STS. NINTH STW.ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STE. KATELLA AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
2 2 3 2 South Harbor Bouleva rd
D EV No. 2 0 14-00083
Subject Property APN: 233-051-08
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
S HARBOR BLVDW WILKEN WAY
S
W
I
L
LOW
B
ROO
K
LN S MADRID STS MALLUL DRS
S MIRA CT
S CUTTY WAY W SUMMERFIELD CIRW. KATELLA AVE
S. WEST STS. NINTH STW.ORANGEWOOD AVE
S. HASTER STE. KATELLA AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
E. ORANGEWOOD AVE
2232 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2014-00083
Subject Property APN: 233-051-08
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00083)
(2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754
to operate a tour bus company with on-site office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storage, or
“Transportation Facility” (referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") located at 2232 S. Harbor
Boulevard 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 approximately 4.9 acres in size and is currently
developed with a restaurant/bar and dinner theater building. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Commercial Recreation land uses. The Property is located within the
boundaries of Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2). As such, the Property is
located in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone and is subject to the zoning and development
standards described in Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 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 Anaheim
Municipal Code (the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754 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 with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754 to operate a tour
bus company with on-site office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storage, should be denied
for the following reasons:
1. The Proposed Project would adversely affect the adjoining land uses, specifically
the residential uses, which units are located twenty feet from the property line, with bedroom
windows facing the parking lot.
2. Evidence was presented by staff and adjacent residents that demonstrated that the
applicant stored and washed vehicles on-site despite explicit instructions, in the form of a formal
Notice of Violation and written and verbal communication from City staff, requiring that
operations cease until approval of a conditional use permit. The observed activities included
power washing the vehicles and use of a generator to vacuum, both of which occurred very early
in the morning and were very loud.
- 1 - PC2014-***
3. The granting of the conditional use permit would pose a nuisance to the
surrounding uses and will provide a land use that is incompatible 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that
proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754 is hereby denied.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of November 17, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 18.60.130 (Appeals – Planning Commission Decisions) of 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
- 2 - 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00083)
(2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754
to operate a tour bus company with on-site office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storage, or
“Transportation Facility” (referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") located at 2232 S. Harbor
Boulevard 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 approximately 4.9 acres in size and is currently
developed with a restaurant/bar and dinner theater building. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Commercial Recreation land uses. The Property is located within the
boundaries of Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2). As such, the Property is
located in Development Area 1 of the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District of the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards described in
Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); 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 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
WHEREAS, on November 17, 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 Anaheim
Municipal Code (the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754 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 with respect to the Proposed Project, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. The Proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized as a "Transportation Facility" under Table 116-C of Section No. 18.116.070 of the
Code.
- 1 - PC2014-***
2. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the Property
has more than adequate space on-site for the storage of buses and they are proposed in locations
that would minimize noise to adjacent properties. The office and administration activities are
proposed within the existing building without any proposed expansion or changes to the interior
floor plan;
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area, nor to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public because the Property is currently developed with a commercial
building to be occupied by the tour company administrative offices and ticketing. The Proposed
Project would not conflict with the activities of the existing restaurant/bar and dinner theater
because ticketing and operation for the two uses occur at different times; 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
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets. Part of the operations of the facility include pick up of customers in the vans and buses
so the uses would not generate traffic from customers coming on-site; and
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05754, 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 that
portion of the Property to be used for the Proposed Project 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 Anaheim
Municipal 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.
- 2 - 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 Anaheim Municipal
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 November 17, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05754
(DEV2014-00083)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS
1 Existing directional signage on the north building wall shall be
relocated to the planters across the drive aisle such that their visibility
is not blocked by parked buses.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Public Works,
Traffic Engineering
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
2 Up to two full-size buses and seven vans may be parked on-site.
Parking for said vehicles shall be limited to the following areas:
- Two full-size buses: Adjacent to the north side of the building,
toward the rear of the building.
- Seven vans: Northeast corner of the property, adjacent to the
valet parking stalls.
No vehicles associated with the tour bus company shall be parked
behind the building, which is reserved for employees of the restaurant
and dinner theater.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
3 Approval of this permit allows one tour bus company to operate on-
site. Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 No vehicle washing, repair, or maintenance is permitted on-site. Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
5 The operators of the tour company and dinner theater shall coordinate
on event nights to determine whether buses should park off-site.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
6 No portable signs shall be utilized to advertise the tour bus facility. Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
7 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion
through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of
trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours
from time of occurrence.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
- 5 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
8 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
9 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 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
- 6 - PC2014-***
Star Line Tours Operating Statement
Amended 10/24/2014
Star Line is an established tour firm with busses operating from multiple locations throughout Southern
California. The company offers moderated tours of various durations to a variety of destinations that
tourists find interesting throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties and beyond, including Movie
Stars’ Homes, Los Angeles City, Southern California Beaches, San Diego, Hollywood, and even Tijuana.
The subject application contemplates Star Line establishing permanent ticketing and administrative
offices in (shared) facilities with the ticketing operation at M3 Live Bar and Grill, now open and
operating at 2232 S. Harbor Blvd.
The two ticketing facility uses will not operate in conflict, as the hours of use for Starline will be
commence at 7 A.M, at which time customers may visit the ticketing lobby at the front of the building,
and assemble in the lobby, waiting to load the bus of their choice. Almost all busses will depart in the
morning, by 10 A.M. Tickets are “sold” via a voucher system conducted over the telephone or online,
normally one day (or sometimes more) in advance of the antipated tour. The voucher that the traveler
has will then be presented at the Starline Harbor Blvd. office and exchanged for passage on the
appropriate bus. Office activity may continue until approximately 6 P.M, with light customer traffic
anticipated, some of which will be on foot, but most of whom will be delivered by Starline’s own buses,
who circulate between Anaheim area hotels after the customer vouchers are issued. The activity will
not be concurrent with M3’s performance venue queuing, which would normally commence after the 7
P.M. hour. Effectively, Starline will be out of the building sometime after 6 P.M.
Starline will have 6-7 onsite employees, including (2) ticketer/phone-minders, (1) accountant, (1) office
manager, (1) logistics manager, (1) controller, and (1) office manager. Their hours will be staggered
according to duties, but can commence at 7 A.M. and end at 6:30 P.M.
Busses will arrive and depart through the North and South drive approaches at the front of the property,
and will be restricted from traveling along the South and East property corridors except for parking at
the end of the day.
The company operates 7 small busses and 2 larger, full-sized tour busses that will be parked at night as
shown on the attached exhibit, away from residences, and normally turned off by no later than 7:30
P.M. (At present, Starline operates with the inconvenience of separate ticketing and parking facilities.)
The two uses combined at 2232 S. Harbor Blvd. are complementary and symbiotic, as each can feed the
other customers. Administered as described herein, Starline Tours will bring non-impacting use to the
City of Anaheim and serve its tourists with a much-needed service that prevents them from seeking the
same elsewhere.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
1
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
From:Jan Rasmussen <jrasmussen@costargroup.com>
Sent:Monday, November 10, 2014 6:48 PM
To:Elaine Thienprasiddhi; Jonathan Borrego
Cc:Joell Kuykendall
Subject:M3Live back lot
Attachments:IMG_20141107_073442934_HDR.jpg
Elaine and Jonathan,
This a follow up to my email of Friday, November 7th regarding activity in the back lot of M3Live with regards to StarLine
tour buses. As I noted previously, about a week ago we began noticing 4‐5 buses parking in the back lot directly outside
of our 2nd story bedroom windows last Monday morning, 11/3 that remained all week and are still parked there as of
this morning. They seem to come and go at various intervals. Some buses are quite large and others are medium to
smaller shuttle‐size. The distance between our windows and the buses is approximately 20‐30 feet.
The concerns we have include the following:
o Noise ‐ On the 7th, the noise began at 6:45 am and included:
Noise from groups of apparent employees gathering, laughing and talking loudly which first
woke us up at 6:45am
Loud noise immediately following from first what sounded like a generator that was used to
power a hose to power wash the vehicles which buzzed for quite a while
Subsequent noise from an additional generator that was brought in by a cleaning service in a
work van (Double Detailing Mobile Car Wash Service) who used their generator to power an
industrial vacuum to clean the insides of the buses with their crew of people. All of this activity
continued until just after 8:00 am.
On Saturday morning, 11/8, one of the buses was moved and angled to face our homes and a
blue unmarked work‐type van pulled up around 7:30. Those in the van opened the hood on the
bus and proceeded to engage of some sort of maintenance activity. (see the attached picture)
o Exhaust fumes
On the morning of the 7th, the exhaust from the generators as well the later idling of the buses
permeated the air outside of our windows. Having any kind of buses or commercial vehicles
that close to our open windows for any for anything other than passing by has always been a
concern for me and my neighbors due to the toxicity of the fumes.
o Lack of lighting in the back lot
We had an initial problem with the back lot being completely without lights. The lights are
finally now on most nites, however, once every couple of weeks, the lot will be completed dark
all nite as it was last nite/early this am, 11/10. We are greatly concerned about security when
the lot is not lit when dark.
As of the writing of this email, there are still StarLine buses parked in the back lot. Per notice from the city, we are
aware of M3Live’s request to use the property as a staging area for StarLine Tours and their vehicles. But we are
concerned that approval of an open‐ended use such as this cannot be properly controlled to avoid the problems we’ve
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
2
experienced both in the past with Battle of the Dance and now this past week with activity around the buses. The
current CUPs were written and approved by the Planning Commission with the goal of creating an environment where
commercial and residential inhabitants can co‐exist. And I believe they do just that. While we want to see a thriving
business in this location rather than a vacant property, amending the CUP to allow parking and maintaining buses 20
feet from my home puts us right back to those Battle of the Dance days.
I plan to attend the meeting next Monday for consideration of the amended use request. Thanks for your time and
attention to this concern.
Jan Rasmussen
ÚÚÚ.m7ÚÚ.m7ÚÚÚÚ.m7ÚÚ.m7BF= 43,500 sq. ft.PROPOSED DINNER THEATERNORTHV EEEPEEPEEPEPE NBPNBPCENTERLINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARDCITY OF ANAHEIMCITY OF GARDEN GROVENBPNBPNBPNPDE NLTNLTGENERAL CIRCULATIONAVAILABILITYLARGE AND SMALL BUSCIRCULATION PLAN TODROP-OFF/ BOARD CUSTOMERSLARGE & SMALL BUSES ENTER ATSOUTH DRIVE APPROACH ANDPROCEED TO DROP-OFF AREABETWEEN 7:00 AND 11:30 AMBUSES THEN LOAD CUSTOMERS &EXIT VIA R.H. TURN ONTO HARBORBLVD. TO ACQUIRE FREEWAY(S)FUNCTION:SYMBOL LEGEND:BIG BUS BACKINGSMALL BUS BACKINGALTERNATIVE ENTRY PLANDURING PERFORMANCEINDEX OF SHEETS:SL1 PASSENGERS DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PLANSL2 SMALL/LARGE BUS RETURN AND PARKING PLANSL3 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FLOOR PLAN2232 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92802 INDESENG INC.Assessor's Parcel Number : 233 - 051 - 08
1%6#5016'&PASSENGER DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PLANSL1/<.REMODEL FLOOR SPACE (MINOR) OF AN EXISTING 43,500 S.F. DINNER THEATRE INCLUDING:SITE DATA :PARKING DATA :SPACES REQUIREDSPACES PROVIDEDBUS PARKING PROVIDEDTOTAL PARKING PROVIDEDBUILDING DATA :OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR :VICINITY MAPATTACHMENT NO. 7
ÚÚ.m7 EEEPEEPEEPE NBPNBPCENTERLINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARDNLTNLTRETURNING S M ALLBUS P A T H
B
A
C
K
-
I
NÚÚÚ.m7ÚÚ.m7
ÚÚÚÚ.m7ÚÚ.m7BF= 43,500 sq. ft.PROPOSED DINNER THEATERV EEEPEEPEEPEPE NBPNBPCENTERLINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARDCITY OF ANAHEIMCITY OF GARDEN GROVENBPNBPNBPNPDE NLTNLT LARGE BUSRETURN PATHALT 1ALT 1ALT 1ALT 1ALT 1
BACK UP1.LARGE BUS ENTERS ONNON-PERFORMANCE NIGHTS @SOUTH DRIVE.2.LARGE BUS PROCEEDS TO NEXTEXIT NORTH AND BACKS INPARKING WITH STAFF ASSISTANCEFOR PARKING CONTROL.3.ON EVENT NIGHTS, BUS SHALLENTER VIA RECIPROCAL ACCESSAGREEMENT @ RESTAURANT TONORTH OF SITE & CIRCULATE VIAALTERNATIVE 1 AS SHOWN ONPLAN. IN CASE OF BLOCKAGE,ALTERNATIVE 2 WOULD BE TOCIRCULATE THROUGH THE REAROF THE LOT.SMALL BUS RETURNPARKING METHOD:1.ENTRY AT NON-VALET DRIVEAT THE SITE CENTER.2.PROCEED AS SHOWN TO NELOT CORNER.3.BACK INTO ASSIGNED STALL.GENERAL CIRCULATIONAVAILABILITYLARGE AND SMALL BUSCIRCULATION PLAN TODROP-OFF/ BOARD CUSTOMERSLARGE & SMALL BUSES ENTER ATSOUTH DRIVE APPROACH ANDPROCEED TO DROP-OFF AREABETWEEN 7:00 AND 11:30 AMBUSES THEN LOAD CUSTOMERS &EXIT VIA R.H. TURN ONTO HARBORBLVD. TO ACQUIRE FREEWAY(S)FUNCTION:SYMBOL LEGEND:BIG BUS BACKINGSMALL BUS BACKINGALTERNATIVE ENTRY PLANDURING PERFORMANCE2232 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92802 INDESENG INC.Assessor's Parcel Number : 233 - 051 - 08
1%6#5016'&SMALL BUS RETURN AND PARKING PLANSL2/<.LARGE BUS RETURN AND PARKING PLAN
EXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEX
I
T
EXIT EXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXIT
1%6#5016'&/<.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FLOOR PLANSL32232 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92802 INDESENG INC.Assessor's Parcel Number : 233 - 051 - 08
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05766
LOCATION: 505 North Euclid Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Desert Sands Public
Charter, Inc., represented by Korynn Kohler. The property owner is Anaheim Place
Partners, represented by Roberto Brutocao.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to operate a public charter high school within an
existing office building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate
environmental determination for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit
No. 2014-05766.
BACKGROUND: This 3.2-acre property is developed with an office building and a bank
and is located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. The General Plan designates this
property for Mixed-Use land uses. Surrounding uses include commercial retail centers to
the north and east, single-family residences to the west and a future parking lot serving the
office building to the south.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to operate a
charter school for high school students on the first floor of an existing 6-story office
building. The program is licensed by the State of California and provides an alternative to
the traditional school setting for students. The school is currently located at 1256 E.
Lincoln Avenue in Anaheim and a new location is needed due to the development of an
affordable housing project on the school’s current site.
As described in the applicant’s letter of request, the charter school operates an independent
study program where students primarily learn at home. Each student has an in-person
meeting on-site with their teacher for one hour once a week. On the day of their in-person
meeting, students may spend time in the facility before or after their meeting to work on a
computer or participate in assessments. The facility would have up to eight teachers
conducting hour-long appointments with individual students from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The
maximum number of students on-site per day would be 80. Because students would not
stay for the whole day, the maximum anticipated number of students at the busiest time
would be 31 once the school reaches its maximum enrollment of 400 students.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05766
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
The floor plan indicates that the school would include offices, a library, labs and an open area
for students to meet with their teachers and work independently. No changes are proposed to the
exterior of the building or the property.
ANALYSIS: Educational Institutions are permitted at this location, subject to approval of a
conditional use permit to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. This particular
school operates more like an office use than a traditional school. The school is anticipated to
blend in seamlessly with the other office uses in the building and would not have an impact to
surrounding uses. The school chose this particular location due to its close proximity to
restaurant and retail uses to the north and east, where parents or guardians can wait while the
students are visiting the facility.
The parking requirement for all uses on site, including the proposed school, is 209 spaces and
276 spaces are provided. There is more than adequate parking provided for the use.
Additionally, the applicant indicates that the majority of their students utilize public
transportation rather than driving a vehicle to the site. The property is located along Orange
County Transportation Authority and Anaheim Resort Transit bus routes. The existing facility
on Lincoln is just under half the size of the proposed facility and has 18 parking spaces. There
have been no parking issues in the five years of operation at that location.
CONCLUSION: Staff supports the proposed charter school based on the described operations,
which are more similar to a typical office use than a traditional school. The school would be
compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area and parking is adequate to accommodate the
proposed use. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Elaine Thienprasiddhi Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Applicant’s Letter of Request
4. CUP Justification
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 website at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Development Plans
6. Site Photographs
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SFR
C-G (MU)VACANT
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4GLEN COVE APARTMENTS30 DU
C-GRETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-G (MU)SFR C-G (MU)PARKING LOTC-G (MU)VACANT
C-GANAHEIM PLAZA(NORTH)RM-4GLENCREST APTS31 DU
C-G (MU)BANK
C-GANAHEIM PLAZASHOPPING CENTER
C-G (MU)PARKING LOTC-G (MU)PARKING LOTC-G (MU)APTS.C-G (MU)OFFICE BLDG.5 FREEWAY5 FREEWAY N EUCLID STW CRESCENT AVE
N MANOR STW WESTMONT DRN FAIRHAVEN STN PARKWOOD STW. BROADWAY
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. LINCOLN AVEN. BROOKHURST STN.
HARBOR BLVDW. ROMNEYA DR
W. LINCOLN AVE
W.LINC O L N A V E
5 0 5 North Euclid Street
D EV No. 2 0 14-00104
Subject Property APN: 072-211-22072-211-13072-211-23072-211-41072-211-24072-211-40072-211-42072-211-39
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
5 FR
E
E
W
A
Y
5 FRE
E
W
A
Y N EUCLID STW CRESCENT AVE
N MANOR STW WESTMONT DRN FAIRHAVEN STN PARKWOOD STN MARIPOSA PLW. BROADWAY
W. LA PALMA AVE
W. LINCOLN AVEN. BROOKHURST STN.
HARBOR BLVD
W. ROMNEYA DR
W. LINCOLN AVE
W.LINC O L N A V E
505 North Euclid Street
DEV No. 2014-00104
Subject Property
APN: 072-211-22
072-211-13
072-211-23
072-211-41
072-211-24
072-211-40
072-211-42
072-211-39
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05766 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00104)
(505 NORTH EUCLID STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05766
to operate a charter school (referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") within a portion of the
real property located at 505 N. Euclid 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 is approximately 3.2 acres in size and is currently
developed with a 6-story office building, freestanding bank, and apartments. The Anaheim
General Plan designates the Property for Mixed Use land uses. The Property is located in the
“CG” General Commercial Zone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and
development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"); 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 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
WHEREAS, on November 17, 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 Anaheim
Municipal Code (the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05766 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 with respect to the Proposed Project, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. The Proposed Project is an allowable primary use under the "Educational
Institutions – General" class of uses within the “CG” General Commercial Zone subject to a
conditional use permit under Subsection .010 of Section No. 18.08.030 of the Code.
- 1 - PC2014-***
2. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the school
would be fully contained within the existing office building with no outdoor activities proposed.
No expansion or other physical changes to the exterior of the building are proposed;
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public because the Property is currently developed with the office building
to be occupied by the school; 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
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets. The majority of students participating in the program are expected to take public
transportation; and
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05766, 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 that
portion of the Property to be used for the Proposed Project 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 Anaheim
Municipal 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal
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.
- 2 - PC2014-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
November 17, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter
18.60 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 3 - PC2014-***
- 4 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05766
(DEV2014-00104)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS
1 A building permit shall be obtained from the Building Division for the tenant
improvement.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Public Works, Traffic
Engineering
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
2 The charter school shall be operated in accordance with the Statement of
Operations submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business
operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval
by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter
of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
3 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the
provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
4 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
5 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
6 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
- 5 - PC2014-***
To Whom It May Concern,
Our unique charter concept is a not for profit organization that offers a personalized education
program for students who need an independent studies approach in meeting their academic needs.
Our program offers the flexibility demanded by students who are seeking an alternative to the
traditional school structure. We provide students with a non-traditional setting which includes
teachers accredited by the State of California, curriculum mandated by the State of California,
appropriate material to accompany curriculum, and a facility referred to as a “Resource Center”
which students attend to fulfill their educational responsibilities. Because the Resource Center
does not provide classroom instruction for 80% or more of the student’s instructional time, it cannot
be classified as a school site as per Educational Code 47605. Please note we are chartered through
Antelope Valley Union High School District located in the High Dessert. Our business license
allows our use via the municipality and our operations are allowed by the California Department of
Education and its respective by-laws. CDE guidelines provided upon request.
The student base is on average at-risk or low income adolescents between the ages of 14-19, of
which 80% are expected to use public transportation. All school activities will occur within the
enclosed building and no recreation activities or facilities are needed. Therefore, the use of the
property will be similar to the activity of an office or light commercial use, and will not
compromise the pedestrian retail corridor. Our independent study program is in the best interest of
public convenience and necessity because it offers an opportunity for youths who otherwise would
not attend a traditional high school due to economic or medical hardship, the opportunity to achieve
a general education and diploma recognized by the state of California, while drawing more
pedestrians to the area throughout the day.
Our program takes great pride in providing students a Resource Center that has the look and feel of
a friendly business office. Students are treated with the same professionalism they notice in the
appearance of the facility they attend. It is in the Resource Center that students have a
predetermined appointment, every week, with their designated teacher to submit and discuss
previous assignment, have assignments evaluated, receive new assignments and participate in
assessments. These weekly meetings between teacher and student are designed to last
approximately one hour. The assignments themselves (and therefore a large majority of the
student’s work) are completed at the student’s home.
- We design our Resource Centers with a 25 to 1 student/teacher ratio and we have two
separate shifts of teachers each day.
- If we were to have a student enrollment of 400 we would then have 16 teachers broken
up into two (2) shifts (8 AM – 1 PM and 1 PM – 6 PM) of eight (8) teachers per shift.
Each teacher is scheduled to see one student per hour, as explained above.
- 16 teachers, 8 per shift, 8 students per hour (operating 10 hours a day would equal 80
students a day, 400 per week if every teacher saw a student every hour.
We also employ a support staff of approximately 3 employees for every 150 students enrolled.
At any given time, you could therefore expect to see 8 teachers, 12 students, and 4 support staff
inside the Resource Center once our peak projected enrollment is reached.
Administrative Offices
42455 10th Street West, Suite 105
Lancaster, CA 93534
(661)272-1225 * (661)945-2430 Fax
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
City of Anaheim Planning Department October 16, 2014
200 South Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Conditional Use Permit – Letter of Justification for: 505 N. Euclid Ave. 1st Floor, Anaheim,
CA 92801
Desert Sands unique charter concept is a not for profit organization that offers a personalized
education program for students who need an independent studies approach in meeting their
academic needs. Our program offers the flexibility demanded by students who are seeking an
alternative to the traditional school structure. We provide students with a non-traditional setting,
which includes teachers accredited by the State of California, curriculum mandated by the State of
California, appropriate material to accompany curriculum, and a facility referred to as a “Resource
Center” which students attend to fulfill their educational responsibilities. As our program has
grown over the years, we now find a need to expand our office and instructional space to another
location. The Anaheim Place is an ideal location and more than adequate for our needs and growth
that is anticipated over the next 5 years.
505 North Euclid Street is located as a stand-alone building across the street from the Anaheim
Plaza. This property in particular, as well as the surrounding properties, was built to accommodate
the needs of a commercial property and meets zoning requirements of the City of Anaheim.
The building that we will be occupying is a six-story building that was built for commercial use. We
will be occupying the entire first floor. The space will contain administrative offices (30%), lab
resource centers (20%), and an open bull-pen style instructional floor area (50%).
As noted prior, this property was developed for commercial use. The surrounding egress and
regress onto the roads, (Euclid and Anaheim Plaza) were designed and built to handle traffic
commensurate with the capacity of the various properties in the commercial area. Anaheim Plaza
to the right, empties onto Euclid Street towards the south and progresses to Interstate 5; Anaheim
Plaza to the left, empties on to Euclid Street to the north towards general commercial and Crescent
Ave. The thoughtful planning of the builders guaranteed that all traffic to and from the business
centers are routed through commercial areas minimizing any possible impact to traffic flow.
Administrative Offices
42455 10th Street West, Suite 105
Lancaster, CA 93534
(661)272-1225 * (661)945-2430 Fax
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RE: Conditional Use Permit – Letter of Justification for: 505 N. Euclid Ave. 1st Floor, Anaheim,
CA 92801
A Conditional Use Permit would not have a negative impact on the health and safety of the
Citizens of the City of Anaheim. To the contrary, it would be beneficial in making good use of a
property that is currently at a low percentage of use and decrease the amount of vacancies in
the area. Additionally, it would bring jobs, commerce and educational visibility to the City of
Anaheim.
As time is of the essence, we would appreciate your prompt response to our application. We
look forward to hearing from you soon and if need be, obtain a date for the City Planning
Department’s agenda.
Sincerely,
Korynn Kohler
Facilities Coordinator
4245510th Street West, #104
Lancaster, CA 93534
Main (661) 272-1225 x6031
Office (661) 349-8374
Cell (661) 618-3136
Administrative Offices
42455 10th Street West, Suite 105
Lancaster, CA 93534
(661)272-1225 * (661)945-2430 Fax
CRESCENT STOFFICE BUILDING
APARTMENTS
BANK
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. 9
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
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 40-unit, attached and detached
residential project with modified development standards;
2) A Variance to permit a deviation from the City’s private street
standard pertaining to parkway and sidewalk widths; and
3) A Tentative Tract Map to permit a 40-unit residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions, determining that previously-certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 2012-00346, along with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122A, is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2014-05730, Variance No. 2014-04976, and Tentative Tract Map No.
17754.
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider a 44-unit, detached small-lot single family residential project on
the subject property. Staff did not support the project due to site design issues such as
an inadequate private street design that did not provide a safe environment for
vehicles and pedestrians, lack of common open space for the residents, inadequate
driveway depths adjacent to the private street, and the incompatibility of three story
residences with roof decks located in close proximity to adjacent single family homes.
Seven neighbors also spoke in opposition to the project for the reasons mentioned
above. The Commission subsequently continued this hearing and requested that the
applicant redesign the project to address these site design issues.
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 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 5
The 2.49-acre project site is located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone; the Brookhurst
Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay zone; and, the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zone.
The project site includes one property developed with a motel and a portion of an adjacent
property that is partially developed with a motel. 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.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing motel and construct 15 attached
condominiums and 25 detached single-family residences using the RM-3 (Multiple-Family
Residential) zone development standards. The residences would range in size from 1,607 to
1,739 square feet. All structures would be three story homes with no roof decks. The homes
along the north and south property lines would be adjacent to commercial uses. Three different
floor plan types are proposed consisting of three bedroom units. The homes would feature
contemporary-style architecture with three different exterior elevation styles. The designs would
feature off-white colored stucco walls, window trim, decorative wrought iron railings, and tile
roofs.
A total of 120 parking spaces are proposed. Each unit would have a two car garage and the
remaining 40 spaces would be provided in uncovered open spaces. Eight-foot high block walls
are proposed to separate the proposed development from the adjacent commercial and single
family residential uses on the north, south, and west sides of the property. A 20-foot wide
landscaped setback would be provided along Brookhurst Street; three foot high white vinyl
fences are proposed within this setback area to provide private front yard areas for the residences
which would face Brookhurst Street. This landscape area would be planted with groundcover,
shrubs and trees to screen the fences and deter graffiti. The development would be served by a
private, non-gated street with one driveway opening on Brookhurst Street. The main 28-foot
wide private street would include sidewalks and landscaped parkways; no street parking is
proposed. A common recreational area including a wood shade structure, decorative pavement,
picnic tables and benches, a gas fire pit, and bike racks is proposed in the rear of the property. A
detailed development summary is included as Attachment 2 to this report.
ANALYSIS: The proposed project would implement the property’s RO Overlay zone. The
purpose of this overlay zone is to provide housing development opportunities consistent with a
property’s Low Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The
implementing zone for this land use designation is the RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone.
Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested action:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 5
Conditional Use Permit: The RM-3 zone requires a conditional use permit to allow a residential
planned unit development for single-family attached and detached dwellings. Development
standards, including interior 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 north and south property lines. The intent of the 20-foot setback along the interior
property lines is to ensure that adequate building separation and landscaping is
provided between adjacent uses. An existing motel borders the property on the south
side and an office building borders the north side of the property. The proposed
condominiums and single family homes adjacent to these property lines would be three
stories in height. In order to minimize visual impacts of this project upon the adjacent
properties, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the property lines consisting of
densely planted trees and an 8-foot high perimeter block wall. The project would
comply with the setbacks required adjacent to the east and west property lines. The
interior setback proposed adjacent to the existing single family homes to the west is 55
feet in compliance with Code requirements. The proposed front setback adjacent to
Brookhurst Street is 20 feet in compliance with Code. Staff believes that the request
for a modification to the interior setback requirement is justified since the reduced
setback areas would be located adjacent to existing commercial uses and the applicant
would be planting these setback areas with dense landscaping to minimize visual
impacts upon the adjacent commercial properties.
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 28-32 foot wide paseos between the buildings and
10-foot wide side yards between the detached single family homes. Walkways and
planters would be located in the paseo areas to reduce the massing of the buildings and
provide pedestrian circulation within the project. The project would include 30,873
square feet of private and common recreation space where 14,000 square feet is
required. 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 increased.
Variance: 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 proposes a 28-foot wide street for the main
street, 4-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street, and a 6-foot wide parkway on one side
of the street. A chart summarizing these private street requirements and modifications is
provided in the development summary (Attachment No. 2). The City Engineer approved the
request to modify the City’s private street standard pertaining to the parkway on one side of the
street. The applicant’s letter of justification and the City Engineer’s decision letter are included
as Attachment Nos. 6 and 7 to this report.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
November 17, 2014
Page 4 of 5
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 a one-
lot, 40-unit residential subdivision, including four lettered lots designated for the private streets
that would be maintained by a homeowners’ association. The proposed density of 16 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.
Parking: The proposed project requires a total of 120 parking spaces and 120 parking spaces are
proposed. Of these spaces, 80 spaces would be provided within enclosed two-car garages for
each unit; the remaining 40 spaces would be provided in open parking spaces between the single
family homes and adjacent to the common recreational area. This project previously required a
parking variance because it was being developed to single-family residential development
standards in the RS-4 zone which required four spaces per unit. A parking variance is no longer
required because the project is being developed to multiple-family residential standards requiring
three parking spaces for each three bedroom unit. Although a parking study is no longer
required, the applicant had previously submitted a parking study to justify providing three
parking spaces per unit. The study is included as Attachment No. 10. 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 reviewed the parking study and concluded that three spaces per unit would
be sufficient for the proposed 40-unit project.
Code Amendment for Maximum Structural Height: The Zoning Code currently does not
allow three-story detached single family residences in the RM-3 zone. A City-initiated
Code amendment to permit three story residences in this zone is on the agenda as Item No.
11. A thorough analysis of this code amendment is provided in that report. Staff believes
that three-story residences are appropriate in the RM-3 zone in some locations, especially
where homes are adjacent to non-residential uses or when developed with an appropriate
setback. Staff is supportive of the three-story residences for this project due to the
proposed 55-foot setback adjacent to the single family residences to the west.
Staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. The
project is designed to enhance the privacy and livability for residents within and around the
project. The proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed and the size and shape of the site for the
proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the site in a manner not detrimental to
the particular area. Staff believes that the applicant has addressed the site design issues that were
raised at the August 25, 2014 Commission meeting. The following chart compares the original
and proposed site design characteristics.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
November 17, 2014
Page 5 of 5
Site Characteristics Previously-Proposed Project Proposed Project
No. of Units 44 detached SF homes 40 units 15 attached condos
25 detached SF homes
Density 17.6 du/acre 16 du/acre
No. of Stories Five, 2-story homes
39, three-story homes w/ roof
decks
All 3 stories
No roof decks
Setbacks from
adjacent single
family homes
12-15 ft. to 2-story homes
15 ft. to 3-story homes w/ roof
decks
55 ft.
(no roof decks)
Private Streets 24 ft. wide streets
No sidewalks or parkways
28 ft. wide street,
Sidewalks and parkways provided,
Open Space 5-15 ft. wide private yards
No common recreation areas
10 ft. wide private yards
Common recreation area
Public Outreach: The applicant attended a West Anaheim community meeting on November 5,
2014, at 7:00 p.m. According to the applicant, the new plans were presented to the community
and the residents were generally pleased with the changes, especially the increased setback of the
units, increased street width, removal of the roof decks, and parking in compliance with Code.
Staff has received one letter of opposition from a nearby business owner, and one letter from an
adjacent neighbor to the west, citing concerns about the impacts of additional high density
residential projects in the area. The letters are included as Attachment No. 9 to this report.
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,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Project Summary
3. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
4. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution
5. Applicant’s Request Letter
6. Applicant’s Letter Requesting Private Street Waiver
7. City Engineer’s Approval Letter
8. City’s Private Street Standard
9. Letter 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.
10. Parking Study
11. Photos
12. 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
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard Proposed Project RM-3 Standards
Site Area 2.5 acres ----
Density 16 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Lot Area 1,364 square feet ----
Lot Width* 31 feet for SF homes Established by CUP
Floor Area* Three Bedrooms: 1,607 - 1,739 sq. ft.
(some models include dens that could
potentially be converted to bedrooms)
1,150 sq. ft. minimum
Maximum Site Coverage* 50% 50% maximum
Front Landscape Setback* 2 feet adjacent to private streets\
20 ft. adjacent to Brookhurst St.
Established by CUP
20 ft. adjacent to Brookhurst St.
Interior setback*
55 feet from adjacent SF homes
10 ft. from commercial uses to north and south
20 feet minimum
Separation between buildings 10 feet between SF homes
(Parking spaces located in some side yards)
28-32 feet wide paseos
40 feet
Building Height* 3-story homes
38 feet high
40 feet or 3 stories
Recreational leisure area* 30,873 square feet of private
and common open space
14,000 square feet minimum
Parking
120 on-site parking spaces
(80 spaces in two -car garage spaces and
40 unenclosed spaces)
120 on-site parking spaces
(3 spaces per each 3 bedroom
unit)
* 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. __.
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730 AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00018)
(641 – 701 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730 to
construct a 40-unit attached and detached small-lot single family residential project with
modified development standards and Variance No. 2014-04976 to permit a deviation from the
City’s private street standard pertaining to parkway and sidewalk widths for that certain real
property located at 641-701 South Brookhurst 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"). Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730
and Variance No. 2014-04976 is proposed in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 17754 to
permit a 40-unit residential subdivision (herein referred to collectively as the “Proposed
Project”); and
WHEREAS, the 2.49-acre Property includes one property developed with a motel and a
portion of an adjacent property that is partially developed with a motel. The Property is located
in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone meaning that the Property is subject to the zoning and
development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"). The Property is also located within the Brookhurst Commercial
Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Chapter 18.22
(Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone) of the Code shall apply to the Property
and shall supersede any inconsistent regulations of the “CG” General Commercial Zone.
However, the Property is also located within the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zone,
which is intended to implement the City's Housing Element of the General Plan by providing
"by-right" housing development opportunities consistent with a property's General Plan land use
designation and consistent with the development standards and requirements set forth in Chapter
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones). The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property
for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses;
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-150 adopted on September 24, 2013, the City
Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2012-00346 and adopted Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A
(collectively referred to as EIR No. 2012-00346), in support of the adoption of the Housing
Opportunities Rezoning Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that, in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.;
herein referred to as “CEQA”) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (herein
referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), (i) EIR No. 2012-00346 serves as the appropriate
environmental documentation for proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730 and
Variance No. 2014-04976 and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA; (ii) none of the
conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the
- 1 - PC2014-***
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental documentation have occurred in
connection with the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730 and Variance No. 2014-
04976; and (iii) no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA for
the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730 and Variance No. 2014-04976; 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, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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 with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05730, 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 Subsection .010 of Section 18.06.160 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code (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 Proposed Project
complies with and implements the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan by providing
"by-right" housing development opportunities consistent with the Property's General Plan land
use designation and is consistent with the development standards and requirements for the "RM-
3" Multiple Family Residential Zone set forth in Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential
Zones) of the Code. 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 and
pedestrian circulation, and trash collection; and
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.
- 2 - PC2014-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request
for a variance in conjunction with the proposed 40-unit attached and detached single family
residential project should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.40.060.090 Private Street Improvements.
(6-foot wide parkways required on both sides of the
street; parkways proposed on one side of the street)
1. That the strict application of the Code would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity because the property has unique site
constraints, due to the narrow and deep property configuration, that precludes the ability to
provide 6-foot wide parkways to meet current Code requirements while maintaining required
parking, recreational areas, and vehicular circulation areas.
2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the Property pertaining to its
topography and location, which do not apply to identical zoned properties in the vicinity because
of the lot configuration. The lot is narrow in width and long in depth and it would be difficult to
provide the Code-required private street improvements. The City Engineer approved the request
by the applicant to modify the City’s private street standard pertaining to the reduced number of
parkways.
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. 2014-05730 and Variance No. 2014-04976, contingent
upon and subject to (1) approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17754, which entitlement is now
pending, (2) 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 (3) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance for Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2014-00120 amending the Zoning Code to increase the maximum height of
detached single family residences in the RM zones from 30 feet/two stories to 40 feet/three
stories. 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.
- 3 - 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
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November,
2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05730 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04976
(DEV2014-00018)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
1 A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for
review and approval to the Public Works Department. The final WQMP
shall address the following items:
- Infiltration via pervious pavers and infiltration wells are
acceptable considerations for this site. More information
regarding the criteria which can preclude infiltration from being
used (e.g. depth to groundwater, prior subsurface contamination,
etc.) shall be identified and considered for Final WQMP (in
particular the depth to groundwater relative to the infiltration wells
with consideration for mounding affects)
- Sizing of the LID/Treatment Control shall be required for Final
WQMP.
- All stormwater form areas other than roof drains and flat
landscape area shall be pretreated for anticipated pollutants (as
required by regulations) as well as for fine sediment (to preserve
the infiltration capacity of the system).
- The pavers must be designed to accommodate vehicular traffic
(including routine trash truck access and occasional fire engine access).
Public Works,
Development Services
2 Prior to approval of the grading and private storm drain plans, the plans
and drainage report shall demonstrate the terminal detention basin and
in-line flow restrictions have been sized to match the pre-development
site flows as required by the City Engineer. The water surface elevation
for the drainage system shall provide adequate freeboard to the residential
pad elevations as required by the City’s design criteria. All drainage items
shall be made part of the homeowner’s maintenance obligations and shall
be added to the tract maintenance covenant. No off-site run-off shall be
blocked during and after grading operations or perimeter wall
construction.
Public Works,
Development Services
3 The developer shall demonstrate in the final drainage report that the
site “developed condition” flows match the site “existing condition”
flows and that improvements to the downstream deficient city storm
drain are not required as a result of this project. The site storm drain
plans shall be approved prior to grading plan approval.
Public Works,
Development Services
4 The existing electrical facilities near the boundary with 631 South
Brookhurst Street shall be relocated at the cost of the applicant if they
interfere with the proposed development.
Public Works,
Development Services
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
5 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
6 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
7 All new water mains, services, meters, backflow devices, laterals, fire
hydrants, and appurtenances shall be designed and installed in
accordance with the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering
Administrative Procedures and Design Guidelines and the Water
Services Standard Specifications, both of which are available on the
Public Utilities Department's website http://www.anaheim.net/.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
8 A ll 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
fu ll y 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 ex istin g
water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated
and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim
Pub li c Util ities Department.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
10 If this is an ind ividual homeowner project with a landscaping area
(including pools or other Water features) exceeding 5,000 square feet,
a Landscape Documentation Package, a Cert i fication of Completion
and a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with
Chapter 10.19 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 abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
12 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 h ydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire
hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement
for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of
the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the
Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department's
standard water easement deed . The easement deeds shall include
language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any
special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but
not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete,
decorative hardscape, walls or l an dscaping 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.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
13 The developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan,
including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities
Water Engineering review and approval. The master plan shall
demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on -site water system to
meet the project's water demands and fire protection requirements.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
14 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
15 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining
the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
16 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering
Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved
b y the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be
posted with the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
17 Individual water service and /or fire line connections will be required
for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18
of the City of Anaheim's Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
18 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
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
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 C, C & R's for the project
and the City easement deeds.
19 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water
looping inside the project are required. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
20 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, and any
buildings, footings, and walls
- 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities,
including storm drains, gas, and electric
- 3 or 6-feet minimum separation from curb face
- 10-feet minimum separation from large trees
Minimum water main horizontal and vertical separation shall be
per COA Std. W-130
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
21 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
22 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or
parking lots. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
23 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hershey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no
equals.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
24 Water meters shall not be installed within driveways or parking
spaces. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
25 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish
electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans,
electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related
technical drawings and specifications.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
26 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to
the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as
shown on the approved utility service plan.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
27 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit
payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
- 9 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
28 All individual residential units shall have addressing readily readable
from the street, indicating the address of that unit. All addressing shall be
free from obstruction and either well lit during hours of darkness or of a
highly contrasting color to its background.
Police Department
29 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 and
the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of
the Orange County Recorder concurrently with the Subdivision
Agreement and the Maintenance Covenant.
Public Works,
Development Services
30 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for private street access. A
stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be painted on the
private street in the southeast bound direction a t Brookhurst Street prior
to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property shall
thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
Public Works,
Development Services
31 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in t he drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on
building plans.
Public Works,
Traffic and
Transportation
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
32 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Fire Department
33 The required public improvements shall be installed prior to final zoning
and building inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
34 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
35 The developer shall improve the streets as follows: 1) improve private
streets per City Standard Detail 162 or as approved by the City Engineer,
2) improve Brookhurst Street per City Standard No. 160-A Major Arterial
6-lanes divided or as approved by the City Engineer (public).
Public Works,
Development Services
36 ADA compliant curb access ramps with truncated domes shall be
constructed at the intersection of Brookhurst Street on both sides of the
private street in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail 111-3.
Public Works,
Development Services
37 All required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works,
Development Services
- 10 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
38 All required public street, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and storm drain
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,
Development Services
39 The legal property owner shall record in the Official Records of the
County of Orange a covenant satisfactory to the Director of Public
Works requiring the property owner to maintain operational the
designated permeable and infiltration on-site areas until such time as the
Director of Public Works determines that the City’s storm drain is no
longer deficient.
Public Works,
Development Services
40 Mature evergreen trees shall be planted along the perimeter of the
project’s backyards and common recreational areas in order to screen
visibility from third story windows into the backyards of adjacent single
family residential properties.
Planning Department
ON-GOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS
41 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
42 Gated entryways are not permitted without obtaining appropriate permits.
A vehicle turnaround area outside of the gates would be required.
Public Works, Traffic
Engineering
GENERAL
43 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
44 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
45 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
- 11 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
46 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
- 12 - PC2014-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00018)
(641 – 701 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET)
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. 17754
to establish a 40-unit residential subdivision for a proposed single-family attached and detached
residential project (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") on that certain real property
located at 641-701 South Brookhurst Street 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. 17754 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No.
2014-05730 and Variance No. 2014-04976 to construct a 40-unit single family attached and
detached residential project; and
WHEREAS, the 2.49-acre Property includes one property developed with a motel and a
portion of an adjacent property that is partially developed with a motel. The Property is located
in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone meaning that the Property is subject to the zoning and
development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"). The Property is also located within the Brookhurst Commercial
Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Chapter 18.22
(Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone) of the Code shall apply to the Property
and shall supersede any inconsistent regulations of the “CG” General Commercial Zone.
However, the Property is also located within the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zone,
which is intended to implement the City's Housing Element of the General Plan by providing
"by-right" housing development opportunities consistent with a property's General Plan land use
designation and consistent with the development standards and requirements set forth in Chapter
18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones). The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property
for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-150 adopted on September 24, 2013, the City
Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2012-00346 and adopted Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A
(collectively referred to as "EIR No. 2012-00346"), in support of the adoption of the the Housing
Opportunities Rezoning Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that, in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.;
herein referred to as “CEQA”) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (herein
referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), (i) EIR No. 2012-00346 serves as the appropriate
environmental documentation for proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17754 and satisfies all of
the requirements of CEQA; (ii) none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of
the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental
documentation have occurred in connection with the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17754;
and (iii) no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared under CEQA for the
proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17754; and
- 1 - PC2014-***
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, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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
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 40-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. 17754, 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 proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17754, 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. 17754, 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. 17754, 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. 17754, subject to (1) approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2014-05730 and Variance No. 2014-04976, both of which entitlements are now pending, (2) 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 (3) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2014-00120 amending the Zoning Code to increase the maximum height of detached single
family residences in the RM zones from 30 feet/two stories to 40 feet/three stories. 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
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17754
(DEV2014-00018)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
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 Vehicular access rights to Brookhurst Street shall be released and
relinquished to the City of Anaheim, except at the approved private street
opening.
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
streets, 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-site and on Brookhurst Street, the private street name signs
and the private streets and drives. 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 Brookhurst Street and the private streets. 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 streets. Prior to final map approval, a bond shall be posted in an
amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City
Attorney.
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 and recorded concurrently with the 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. 5
October 15, 2014
Rudy Emami
Acting 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. Emami:
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 40 homes (15 attached townhomes and 25 detached homes),
ornamental landscaping, and internal access drives. The City’s General Plan designates the site for
Residential (Low-Medium), allowing up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Internal circulation is provided by a
28-foot wide east-west private street which serves as the primary access from Brookhurst Street and
provides direct access to garages for the homes located on the north side of the project site. This private
street also provides access to 28-foot wide drive aisles that provide access to the garages for all of the
homes on the south side of the private street.
Pedestrian access is provided by 4-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the private street and via paseos
for the homes located on the south side of the private street. The design of the private street and drive
aisles comply with Engineering Standard Detail No. 162, which requires a 4-foot wide sidewalk and 6-
foot wide parkway, except for a portion of the parkway adjacent to units 19, 26 and 27 where it has
been reduced to 2 feet. Please refer to the attached site plan for reference.
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
2400 E. Katella Avenue • Suite 800 • Anaheim, CA 92806
www.development-advisors.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
impact created by the development project.
The project site is constrained by a lot configuration that is irregular and has a greater depth than width.
This configuration makes it difficult to completely implement the private street standard while
complying with all the other standards of the RM-3 zone. All of these adjacent uses require setbacks and
land area in order to “fit” this infill project into the existing neighborhood. As such, the building
envelope of the site is significantly reduced and accommodating private streets, landscaping, yards and
building pads for the homes becomes difficult. The proposed modification to Engineering Standard
Detail No. 162 carefully considered all of these factors. The proposed design maintains the required
pavement of the private street as well as the sidewalk width and width of the parkway on the north side
of the street, while reducing the parkway width by 4 feet adjacent to units 19, 26 and 27. Following is
the justification for the proposed private street modification:
• 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 access to sidewalks on both
sides of the private street. In addition, homes along the southern portion of the project will have
direct access to their homes from pedestrian paseos.
• Private Street and Sidewalk Width – The proposed 28-foot private streets, the 4-foot sidewalks
on both sides of the street, and the 6-foot parkway on the north side of the private street meet
the requirements outlined by Std. No. 162.
• Parkway – In order to achieve the required street and sidewalk widths and maintain acceptable
setbacks to the existing single-family homes, the proposed parkway width adjacent to units 19,
26 and 27 is 2 feet. The attached site plan demonstrates that the parkway has enough area to
install and maintain landscaping.
• Precedence – One example of a recently approved project that has utilized a parkway less than
the required 6-foot width is Silveroak’s 25 unit single-family home project located at 3323 W.
Ball Road.
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
Attachment: Project Site Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
From:val@lesterinsurance.com
To:David See
Subject:Conditional use permit #2014-05730641-701 So. Brookhurst
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2014 11:18:09 AM
Hello David, I have a business located across the street from the proposed development.In the 36 years I have been here, I have notice how heavy the traffic is onBrookhurst. I'm concerned about the impact of even more traffic. The noiseof building construction is also a concern. The impact on local schools. Weare in the middle of a drought and this would impact the water supply. Thisplan for densely populated housing and parking cars for 40 households couldspire out into local neighborhoods. I am apposed to the plan. Sincerely,
Val Lester
LESTER & SONS INSURANCE
670 S Brookhurst StAnaheim, CA 92804
714-635-7171714-635-0652 fax800-458-1976
California DOI license # 0402616
val@lesterinsurance.com orlesterinsurance@yahoo.comwww.lesterinsurance.com
The highest compliment we can receive is your referral!
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information in this email and its attachments, if any,are confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the recipient only. If youhave received this email or any attachments in error, please notify the sender via emailor by telephone at the number listed above immediately and please delete the originalmessage. Thank you in advance.
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
From:rosalie edwards
To:David See
Subject:New Housing Tract
Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:30:01 PM
My name is Rosalie Edwards, and I live at 9651 Colony St.
I do not want a new housing tract behind my street.
It will only add more congestion and confusion on brookhurst,
and a lot more noise and disturbance on our street.
I could not go to the meeting, so this is why I am sending this email.
Thank you
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
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).
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
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. 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
641 S. Brookhurst - Anaheim (40)MBK HomesProject No.: MBK01Date: Oct. 24, 20145th City SubmittalR.O.W. per Civil Engineer.Property line.Existing concrete sidewalk & parkway, to remain.Proposed wall / fence (per Wall & Fence Plan).Proposed pilaster (per Wall & Fence Plan).Proposed side/rear yard gate (per Wall & Fence Plan).Proposed tree (per Planting Plan).Drought tolerant planting (per Planting Plan), including waterquality basin per Civil's plans.Vehicular / pedestrian sight line, per local codes.Private yard, homeowner installed & maintained.Pedestrian enhanced paving node (enhanced colored concretewith medium top-cast finish and 24" sq. saw-cut joints).Vehicular asphalt paving (per Civil's plans).Natural colored concrete driveway with medium top-cast finish andsaw-cut joints.Mailboxes (CBU, per local USPS specifications).4' Wide shared walk or 3' Wide single unit entry walk, naturalcolored concrete with med-top-cast finish and saw-cut joints.Proposed private patio access gate (per Wall & Fence Plan).Community open space / park, per Pocket Park Enlargement Plan.)Guest parking stall.Guest ADA parking stall.Proposed low decorative pot / project sign wall element.Proposed transformer, final locations to be determined by UtilityConsultant.11.10.5.9.8.7.6.4.3.2.1.LEGEND12.13.14.15.16.NOTES:1.All new landscaping shall have a fully automatic irrigation system. Irrigation (including spray and/or drip) will be provided,in the Construction Document phase, and to be installed per local California water regulations (AB1881).Schematic Overall Landscape Plan17.18.19.20.21.Decorative Pot / Project Sign Wall Elevation
641 S. Brookhurst - Anaheim (40)MBK HomesProject No.: MBK01Date: Oct. 24, 20145th City SubmittalSchematic Pocket Park Enlargement PlanProperty line.Proposed wall / fence (per Wall & Fence Plan).Proposed tree (per Planting Plan).Drought tolerant planting (per Planting Plan), including water quality basinper Civil's plans.Pedestrian enhanced paving node (enhanced colored concrete withmedium top-cast finish and 24" sq. saw-cut joints).Vehicular asphalt paving (per Civil's plans).Mailboxes (CBU, per local USPS specifications).4' Wide min. sidewalk, natural colored concrete with med-top-cast finishand saw-cut joints, location per Civil's plans.Wood shade structure.Metal picnic table.Metal trash receptacle.In-ground gas fire pit.Metal bike racks, surface mounted (for 4 bicycles).Enhanced colored concrete with medium top-cast finish and 24" squaregrid saw-cut pattern.Guest parking stall.Guest ADA parking stall.5.6.4.3.2.1.LEGEND7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.
W125P-36P-11P-8
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5P-6 P-9P-10P-7P-13P-14P-20P-19P-18P-17P-16
P-37P-35P-34P-33P-39P-40P-30P-31P-32P-21P-22P-23P-24P-25
P-26
P-15
3P-27
4386789181716151413111012PASSIVE REC AREA (4,460 S.F.)P-29192625202124232230292827353433323136373940650 S.F. TYP.SPEED HUMP
SPEED HUMP
SPEED HUMPP-381A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A2A2A2A2A2A2A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A2A2A2A2A2A2AP-28NO PARKINGP-12Olive sp. (Fruitless Olive)Type/FormAgonis flexuosa (Peppermint Tree)Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress)PLANTING LEGENDPALMSSymbolSmallVerticalSpecimenCanopy /ColumnarTrunkSingleSingleSingleBotanical Name (Common Name)SuggestionsMelaleuca quinquenervia (Paperbark Melaleuca)BufferSingleSingleLagerstroemia i. 'Natchez' (White Crape Myrtle)SizeB&B24" Box15 Gal15 Gal15 GalSyagrus romanzoffiana (Queen Palm)VerticalSingle24" BoxTREESWUCOLTristania conferta (Brisbane Box)Juniperus 'Sky Rocket' (Sky Rocket Juniper)Podocarpus macrophyllus (Yew Pine)Magnolia 'Sommers Samual' Southern MagnoliaMediumSingleGeijera parvilflora (Australian Willow)15 GalDeciduousEvergreenLowMedMedMedLowLowLowMedLowMedStreet TreePlatanus racemosa (California Sycamore)Rhus lancea (African Sumac)641 S. Brookhurst - Anaheim (40)MBK HomesProject No.: MBK01Date: Oct. 24, 20145th City SubmittalNOTES:1.All new landscaping shall have a fully automatic irrigation system. Irrigation (including spray and/or drip) will be provided, in the ConstructionDocument phase, and to be installed per local California water regulations (AB1881).2.Transformers, back-flow preventers & other above-ground utilities to be screened with landscape as permitted per local codes & regulations.3.Landscape lighting (landscape up-lights, path lights/bollards, etc.) to be coordinated with Electrical Engineer in future phase.4.$OOWUHHVZLWKLQ
RIKDUGVFDSHWREHLQVWDOOHGZLWKGHHSURRWEDUULHUVRosmarinus officinalis 'Tuscan Blue'Strelitzia reginaeBird of ParadiseRosemaryLigustrum japonicum "Texanum"SHRUBS and GROUND COVERRosa sp.Japanese PrivetRoses & Carpet RosesAgave sp.Agave Aloe sp.AloeBougainvillea sp.BougainvilleaCarissa m. 'Green Carpet'Dwarf Natal PlumLavandula stoechas 'Larkman Hazel' +D]HO6SDQLVK/DYHQGHURosmarinus p. 'Huntington Carpet'Groundcover / Prostrate RosemaryXylosma congestum 'Compact'Compact XylosmaAeonium arboreum 'Atropurpureum'Purple AeoniumCarexSedgesNassella pulchraPurple NeedlegrassMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassDymondia margaretaeSilver CarpetDelosperma cooperiTrailing Ice PlantVINES & ESPALIERSBougainvillea 'Monka' BougainvilleaHardenbergia violacea 'Happy Wanderer'Purple Vine Lilac2R/D/D%RXJDLQYLOOHDCordyline sp.Purple Dracaena PalmPittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf'Dwarf Mock OrangeSchematic Planting PlanAnigozanthosKangaroo PawLantana camara 'Rose IMP' %DQGDQD5RVH,PSURYHG/DQWDQDEchium candicansPride of MadeiraCallistemon 'Little John'Dwarf CallistemonCeanothus griseus 'Point Sal'Point Sal Wild LilacLeucophyllum spp. Sage / Texas RangerSenecio sp.Blue Chalk / Fingers70% of the proposed trees, shrubs,groundcovers and vines are planned to bedrought tolerant with low water demands.FOUNDATION SHRUB (BLUE)FOUNDATION SHRUB (RED)
W125P-36P-11P-8
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5P-6 P-9P-10P-7P-13P-14P-20P-19P-18P-17P-16
P-37P-35P-34P-33P-39P-40P-30P-31P-32P-21P-22P-23P-24P-25P-26P-15
3P-27
4386789181716151413111012PASSIVE REC AREA (4,460 S.F.)P-29192625202124232230292827353433323136373940650 S.F. TYP.SPEED HUMP
SPEED HUMP
SPEED HUMPP-381A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A2A2A2A2A2A2A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A2A2A2A2A2A2AP-28NO PARKINGP-125'-6" High White Vinyl Fence6' High Slump Wall & Slump Cap (Tan Color)+-5'-6" High White Vinyl Gate (3' W)+-3'-0" High White Vinyl Gate (3' W)3'-0" High White Vinyl Fence8'-6" High Slump Pilaster & Slump Cap (Tan Color)WALL / FENCE LEGEND8' High Slump Wall & Slump Cap (Tan Color)(& 3' high retaining for total 11' height on the low side)(& 3' high retaining for total 9' height on the low side)641 S. Brookhurst - Anaheim (40)MBK HomesProject No.: MBK01Date: Oct. 24, 20145th City SubmittalSchematic Wall & Fence Plan
W
125
P-36
P-11P-8P-1P-2P-3P-4P-5P-6P-9P-10P-7P-13P-14P-20P-19P-18P-17P-16P-37
P-35
P-34
P-33
P-39 P-40
P-30
P-31
P-32P-21P-22P-23P-24P-25P-26P-153
P-274
38
6789181716151413111012
PASSIVE REC AREA (4,460 S.F.)
P-29
19 26
2520
21 24
2322 30
29
28
27
35
34
33
32
31
36
37
39
40
650 S.F. TYP.SPEED HUMPSPEED HUMPSPEED HUMPP-38
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
1A
1A
1A
1A 1A
3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A2A2A2A2A2A
2A3A
3A
3A
3A 3A 3A
3A
3A 3A
3A
2A 2A
2A
2A 2A
2A
P-28NO PARKINGP-12
641 S. Brookhurst - Anaheim (40)
MBK Homes
Project No.: MBK01
Date: Oct. 24, 2014
5th City Submittal
Schematic Lighting Plan
Low Voltage Transformer
Tree / Accent Uplight
Downlight at Trellis Structure In-Ground Flush Mount Palm
Up-Light
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. 10
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04982
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
LOCATION: 701 East Cypress Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Matt Hamilton with SC
Land Project 6, LLC. The agent representing the applicant is Greg McCafferty. The
property owner is William Taormina with Clean City, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications:
1) A Reclassification to rezone the property from the RS-3 (Single
Family Residential) and I (Industrial) zones to the RS-4 (Single
Family Residential) zone; and
2) A Conditional Use Permit to permit a 38-unit, detached small-lot
single family residential project with modified development
standards; and
3) A Variance for (i) driveway lengths less than required by the Zoning
Code, (ii) a deviation from the City’s private street standard
pertaining to parkway widths, and (iii) wall heights greater than
permitted by the Zoning Code; and
4) A Tentative Tract Map to permit a 38-lot single family residential
subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolutions, 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) for this request, and approving Reclassification No. 2014-00273,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753, Variance No. 2014-04982, and Tentative
Tract Map No. 17811.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753, VARIANCE NO.
2014-04982, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND: This 2.3-acre project site is located in the RS-3 (Single Family Residential)
and I (Industrial) zones and is developed with an industrial building. The property is also located
in the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zone. The site is designated for Low-Medium
Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding uses include industrial buildings
and single-family residences to the north, single-family residences to the west and south, and a
railroad track to the east.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing industrial building and construct
38 detached, small lot single-family residences using the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zone
development standards. The residences would range in size from 1,550 to 1,695 square feet.
Eight homes along the west property line, adjacent to existing single family homes, would be
two stories with 4-foot wide front yards and 15-foot wide rear yards. The remaining 30 homes
would be three stories with 7-foot wide front yards and 8-foot wide rear yards. Two different
floor plan types are proposed consisting of three and four bedroom units. The homes would have
craftsman-style architecture with four different exterior elevation styles. The designs would
feature green, gray, and brown-colored facades, stucco walls, horizontal wood siding, wood
shutters, window trim, decorative wrought iron railing, shingle siding below the gable roof ends,
stone veneer siding at the base of the columns, and asphalt shingle roofs.
The lot sizes would range between 1,598 and 2,718 square feet. Each property would have a
two-car garage and 18-foot long driveways with two tandem parking spaces. Six-foot high block
walls are proposed to separate the private yards for each unit. A 14-foot high wall is proposed
along the east property line adjacent to the railroad track to mitigate sound levels generated by
the Metrolink and Amtrak trains. The new neighborhood would be served by two private, non-
gated streets with access on both Adele and Cypress Streets. The 28-foot wide private streets
would include 4-foot wide sidewalks and 3-foot wide landscaped parkways; no street parking is
proposed. A detailed development summary is included as Attachment 2 to this report.
ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested action:
Reclassification: This property is located in the RO Overlay zone which would allow “by right”
multi-family development subject to the RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone development
standards. However, the applicant has elected to propose a detached single-family residential
product that is not permitted in the RM-3 zone, unless developed in combination with an attached
single-family residential product. Therefore, a reclassification to the RS-4 zone is required. The
proposed RS-4 zone designation is consistent with and would implement the property’s Low-
Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The intent of the RS-4 Zone is to
provide for development of high-quality, detached, single-family residential units on small lots.
The proposed zoning designation would be compatible with the existing single-family residential
zoning of the residential properties to the south and west and 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.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753, VARIANCE NO.
2014-04982, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 5
• Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses.
• 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 small lot, single-family detached dwellings in the RS-4
zone in order to ensure a high quality project design. The Code also requires that the size and
width of lots within the development be established by the site plan approved through the
conditional use permit. The smallest lot is 1,598 square feet and each lot is a minimum of 35
feet wide. The lot sizes and widths being proposed are adequate to ensure quality design that is
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition, the RS-4 zone requires a
minimum floor area of 1,225 square feet and maximum lot coverage of 50%; the project is in
compliance with the floor area and lot coverage requirements.
Minimum setbacks 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. The applicant requests approval of the following setback
modifications:
Yard Proposed Setback Required Setback
Front 4 – 7 ft. 10 ft.
Side 3.2 - 3.4 ft. 5 ft.
Rear 8 – 15 ft. 10 ft.
The intent of the setback requirements is to ensure that adequate separation and landscaping is
provided between adjacent uses and structures. A modification is being requested for the front,
side, and rear yards. Staff believes that the request for a deviation in these setbacks are justified
in this case since usable private yard spaces are being provided; adequate natural light is
available to each residential unit; the building facades are well-articulated and attractive:
windows are arranged to protect the privacy of the residents; and, the reduced setbacks are
appropriate for the more urbanized development patterns in the downtown area. Moreover, the
eight two-story residences along the west property line would be compatible with the adjoining
single-family homes. The homes proposed along the west property line would maintain a rear
yard setback of 15 feet, thereby minimizing potential privacy and visual impacts on the adjacent
homes. In addition, this project would provide a design that would be consistent with other infill
residential projects that have recently been constructed with similar building setbacks, including
the last phase of the nearby Colony Park development. For these reasons, staff recommends
approval of the setback modification request.
Maximum Structural Height: The Zoning Code currently does not allow three-story
detached single family residences in the RS-4 zone. A City-initiated Code amendment to
permit three story residences in this zone is on the agenda as Item No.11. 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 are
adjacent to non-residential uses or when developed with an appropriate setback. Staff is
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753, VARIANCE NO.
2014-04982, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
November 17, 2014
Page 4 of 5
supportive of the three-story residences for this project because these homes would be
located more than 55 feet from the single family residences to the west.
Parking: The proposed project requires a total of 152 parking spaces for the 38 residences and
152 spaces are proposed. Of these spaces, 76 spaces would be provided within enclosed two-car
garages for each unit; the remaining 76 spaces would be provided in tandem parking spaces
within the driveways of each home. The project would provide the Code required number of
parking spaces.
Variances: The applicant requests approval of a variance for each of the following deviations
from the Zoning Code:
Required Length of Driveways: The applicant proposes reduced driveway lengths for all of
the units. This standard cannot be modified through the conditional use permit process and
must be considered as a variance from the Zoning Code. The Code requires a 20-foot long
driveway for single family residences and 18-foot long driveways are proposed. This
deviation has been approved in other single-family developments without detriment as an 18-
foot depth provides enough room for nearly all vehicles to park in the driveway without
overhanging into the sidewalk. The project complies with the Code requirement to provide
four, on-site parking spaces; two spaces inside the garage and two spaces in front of the
garage. Staff supports the variance request for reduced driveway lengths because the reduced
length would maintain a safe and acceptable condition for cars entering and exiting the
parking spaces and would be deep enough to accommodate the majority of vehicles. The
proposed 18 foot long parking space is consistent with the required length of a typical
parking space in a commercial parking lot. In addition, the two-car garage spaces provided
on-site would be 20 feet deep to accommodate larger vehicles. Requiring the proposed
development to meet the required length of parking spaces would necessitate reduced
building setbacks due to the narrow shape of the property.
Private street standard pertaining to parkway widths: 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 when the
main entrances to the units face the street. The applicant proposes a 28-foot wide street for
both streets, 4-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of each street, and 3-foot wide parkways
adjacent to the sidewalks. A chart of these private street requirements and modifications is
provided in the development summary (Attachment No. 2). The City Engineer approved the
request to modify the City’s private street standard pertaining to the reduced parkway widths.
The applicant’s letter of justification and the City Engineer’s decision letter are included as
Attachment Nos. 7 and 8 to this report.
Maximum Wall Height: The Zoning Code allows a maximum wall height of eight feet to
separate residential uses from railroad rights-of-way. The applicant proposes a 14-foot high
sound wall adjacent to the railroad track. To ensure that the project could comply with the
City’s sound attenuation requirements for residential development, the applicant submitted a
noise study prepared by Bridgenet International, dated September 5, 2014 (Attachment No.
10). The study determined that the proposed 14-foot high sound wall would serve to
attenuate the train sound levels to less than 65 dB CNEL for the recreation areas and
identified the requirements to comply with the 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard, as
required by the Zoning Code. This wall height would be consistent with other previously-
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753, VARIANCE NO.
2014-04982, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
November 17, 2014
Page 5 of 5
approved residential developments adjacent to the same railroad track. These developments
include the 60-unit Vine Street apartments, 670-unit Colony Park, and the 93-unit Vintage
Crossing apartments to the south of the site. These walls would also be consistent with the
existing wall separating Citrus Park from the railroad at Broadway and Atchison Street. The
proposed aesthetic treatment of the sound wall, including the provision of clinging vines,
would be consistent with the aforementioned walls in the surrounding area.
Tentative Tract Map: The proposed 2.3-acre project site includes 15 parcels that would be
assembled to create the proposed housing tract. The project site also includes two public alleys
that would be abandoned as part of this request. The proposed tentative tract map includes 38
numbered residential lots and two lettered lots designated for the private streets that would be
maintained by a homeowners’ association. The proposed density of 16.4 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.
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 industrial land uses. The reclassification 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,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Project Summary
3. Draft Reclassification Resolution
4. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
5. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution
6. Applicant’s Request Letter
7. Applicant’s Letter Requesting Private Street Waiver
8. City Engineer’s Approval Letter
9. City’s Private Street Standard
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.
10. Noise Study
11. Photos
12. Plans
IIN D U S T R IA L
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4FOURPLEX
R S -3
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
S P 9 0 -2
C O N D O M IN IU M S /T O W N H O U S E S
R M -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
R M -4APT S16 D U
RM-4APTS12 DU
R M -4APT S16 D U
RM-4APTS5 DU
S P 9 0 -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
R S -3APT S9 D U
RS-3DUPLEX
RM-4APTS27 DU
RM-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LYRESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERM-4SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4SYCAMOREAPTS16 DU
RM-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERM-4MULTI
PLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENTI
ALRS-2VACANT
RM-4APTS6 DU
RM-4APTS7 DURM-4APTS7 DU
IA U T O S A L V A G E
Y A R DIRETAIL
S P 9 0 -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E RM-4MULTI
PLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENTI
ALRM-4MULTI
PLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENTI
ALR S -3
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
R S -3
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
SP 90-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCEN VI
NE STE A D E L E S T
E S Y C A M O R E S T
N PAULI
NE STE C Y P R E S S S T N BUSH STN SABI
NA STN VI
NTAGE
L
NN VI
NE STE C Y P R E S S S T
E C H A R T R E S S T
E C I T Y C T N PAULI
NE STE AFTON LNN KROEGER STN SABI
NA STE. LA PALMA AVE
E .L IN C O L N A V EN.
EAST STN.
HARBOR BLVDS.
EAST STW . L IN C O L N A V E
E . B R O A D W A Y
W . B R O A D W A Y
W. LA PALMA AVE
S.STATECOLLEGEBLVDS.
ANAHEI
M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y
7 0 1 East Cypres s S treet
D EV No. 2 0 14-00046
Subject Property APN: 035-176-03035-176-02035-176-15035-176-14035-176-10035-176-06
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 13
N V
INE
ST
E ADELE ST
E SYCAMORE ST
N PAUL
INE
ST
E CYPRESS ST N BUSH
STN SAB
INA
STN V
INTAGE
LN N V
INE
ST
E CYPRESS ST
E CHARTRE
S
S
T
E CITY CT N PAUL
INE
ST
E AFTON L
N
N KROEGER
STN SAB
INA
STN C
ITY
CT
E. LA PALMA AVE
E .L I N C O L N A V EN. EAST
STN. HARBOR
BLVDS.
EAST
ST
W. LINCO
L
N
A
V
E
E. BROADW
A
Y
W. BROADW
A
Y
W. LA PALMA AVE
S.STATECOLLEGEBLVDS.
ANAHE
IM
BLVD
E. BROADW
A
Y
701 East Cypress Street
DEV No. 2014-00046
Subject Property
APN: 035-176-03
035-176-02
035-176-15
035-176-14
035-176-10
035-176-06
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:
May 2013
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard Proposed Project RS-4 Standards
Site Area 2.3 acres ---
Density 16.4 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Lot Area* 1,598 to 1,953 square feet Established by CUP
Lot Width* 34 – 43 feet Established by CUP
Floor Area* Three Bedrooms: 1,550 sq. ft.
Four Bedrooms: 1,695 - 1,746 sq. ft.
1,225 sq. ft. minimum
Maximum Site Coverage* 39 to 50% 50% maximum
Front Landscape Setback* 4 – 10 feet 10 feet minimum
Side yard Setback* 3 – 4 feet 5 feet minimum
Rear yard setback* 15 feet for 2 story homes
5 – 8 feet for 3 story homes
15 feet minimum
Building Height** Three-story homes 30 feet or 2 stories
Parking
4 on-site parking spaces per unit
(2 garage spaces and 2 spaces
in front of garage)
4 on-site parking spaces per unit
(2 garage spaces and 2 spaces
in front of garage)
* 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. 11.
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00273 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.
(DEV2014-00046)
(701 EAST CYPRESS STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for reclassification, designated as Reclassification
No. 2014-00273, for that certain real property located at 701 East Cypress 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"). Reclassification
No. 2014-00273 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753,
Variance No. 2014-04982, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17811 to construct a 38-unit, small lot
single family residential project (herein referred to collectively as the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with an industrial building. The
Property is located in the “RS-3” (Single Family Residential) and “I” (Industrial) zones. 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 "RS-4" Single-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. 2014-00273;
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 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) the Proposed
Project will not have any significant effects on the environment, and no additional environmental
review is required under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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
- 1 - PC2014-***
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 RS-3 (Single Family Residential)
and I (Industrial) zones to the RS-4 (Single 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 site and is compatible with the surrounding single
family residential and industrial 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. 2014-00273 to authorize an
amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the
Property into the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone and recommends that the City Council
adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2014-
00273.
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
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November,
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. 2014-05753 AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04982
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00046)
(701 EAST CYPRESS STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753 to
permit a 38-unit small lot, single family residential project, and Variance No. 2014-04982 for (i)
driveway lengths less than permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), (ii) a
deviation from the City’s private street standard pertaining to parkway widths, and (iii) a wall
height that exceeds Code requirements for that certain real property located at 701 East Cypress
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").
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753 and Variance No. 2014-04982 are proposed in
conjunction with Reclassification No. 2014-00273 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17811 to
construct a 38-unit single family residential project (herein referred to collectively as the
“Proposed Project”) and is contingent upon the adoption by the City Council of Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2014-00120, an ordinance that will increase the permitted height of detached
single-family residences in the "RS-4" Single Family Residential and "RM" Multiple Family
Residential Zones; and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with an industrial building. The
Property is located in the “RS-3” (Single Family Residential) and “I” (Industrial) zones. 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-
05753 and Variance No. 2014-04982; 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,
- 1 - PC2014-***
(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,
(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, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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 with respect to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2014-05753:
1. The request to permit the Proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional
use permit is authorized under paragraph .010 of Subsection .160 of Section 18.04 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 does further find and determine that the request
for a variance in conjunction with the proposed 38-unit small lot, single family residential project
should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.40.060.090 Private Street Improvements.
(6-foot wide parkways required on both sides
of the private street; 3-foot wide parkways
proposed)
SECTION NO. 18.42.030.040.0401 Minimum driveway lengths.
(20 feet required; 18 feet proposed)
SECTION NO. 18.46.110.020 Maximum wall height.
(8-foot high wall permitted adjacent to a
railroad track; 14 feet high proposed)
1. That the strict application of the Code would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity because the property has unique site
constraints since the site has frontages on two public streets, that precludes the ability to provide
the Code required private street improvements and driveway lengths. In addition, the City
Engineer approved the request by the applicant to modify the City’s private street standard
pertaining to the reduced parkway widths.
2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the Property pertaining to its
topography and location, which do not apply to identical zoned properties in the vicinity because
the site has frontages on two public streets and is located adjacent to a railroad track. Moreover,
the proposed 14-foot high wall is intended to separate residential uses from a railroad right-of-
way and will serve to attenuate the train sound levels to less than 65 dB CNEL for the outdoor
recreation areas and the 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard. This wall height would be
consistent with other previously-approved residential developments adjacent to the same railroad
track.
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.
- 3 - PC2014-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753 and Variance No. 2014-04982, contingent
upon and subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance reclassifying the
Property to the "RS-4" Single Family Residential Zone in accordance with Reclassification No.
2014-00273, (2) approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17811, 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 Zoning Code Amendment No.
2014-00120, an ordinance that will increase the permitted height of detached single-family
residences in the “RS-4” Single Family Residential and "RM" Multiple Family Residential
Zones. 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.
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
November 17, 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
- 4 - 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 November 17, 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 17th day of November,
2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2014-***
- 6 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05753 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04982
(DEV2014-00046)
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
4 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Owner shall submit a Final
Drainage Study prepared by a registered professional Civil Engineer in
the State of California. The study shall be based upon and reference the
latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the
applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area.
All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall
be maintained, including applicable off-site areas. The study shall
include an analysis of 10, 25, and 100-year storm frequencies, an
analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system based
upon the ultimate project build-out condition, and address whether off-
Public Works,
Development Services
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
site and/or on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/retention
basins or surface run-off reduction) will be required to prevent
downstream and upstream properties from becoming flooded.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO WATER ENGINEERING
5 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
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.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
6 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
7 The owner shall submit s set of improvement plans for review and
approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water
service to the project.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
8 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed
meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
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, Water
Engineering
10 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
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
shall be included in the recorded Master C, C & R's for the project
and the City easement deeds.
11 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
12 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, and any
buildings, footings, and walls
- 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities,
including storm drains, gas, and electric
- 6-feet minimum separation from curb face
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
13 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
14 No public water mains or laterals shall be allowed under parking stalls
or parking lots.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
15 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection and
domestic water shall be provided. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
16 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
17 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
18 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
- 9 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
19 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current
Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire
line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued
use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed.
The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to
abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
20 Water improvement plans and approved design shall be submitted. The
legal property owner shall post a security to complete the required
improvements. The improvements shall be completed prior to Final
Building and Zoning Inspections.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering
21 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for both proposed private
streets. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be painted on
private streets in the southbound direction at Cypress Street and in the
northbound direction at Adele Street. Subject property shall thereupon
be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
Public Works,
Development Services
22 Curbs along both private streets shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking along both private streets. Red curb locations shall be clearly
labeled on building plans.
Public Works,
Development Services
23 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 the 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
PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
24 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from
the street. Numbers shall be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department
25 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
26 The required public improvements shall be installed prior to final zoning
and building inspection. Public Works,
Development Services
27 ADA compliant curb access ramps with truncated domes shall be
constructed at the intersections of Adele Street on both sides of the
private streets in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail 111-3.
Public Works,
Development Services
28 All required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works,
Development Services
- 10 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
29 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
30 Prior issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the 13th unit of the 38
proposed units, with the exception of 2 model units which may be
offered limited occupancy for sales purposes only and not for use as a
residence, the two segment City’s Sewer Improvements as well as the
one segment Developer’s offsite Sewer Improvement in Lincoln Avenue
shall be completed and operational. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy, the construction of the Developer constructed sewer segment
shall have begun.
Public Works,
Development Services
31 The developer shall improve the streets as follows: 1) improve private
streets per City Standard Detail 162 or as approved by the City Engineer,
2) improve Cypress Street and Adele Street per City Standard No. 160-A
local street or as approved by the City Engineer (public).
Public Works,
Development Services
ON-GOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS
32 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
33 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
34 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveway or access
roads without providing a vehicle turnaround area.
Public Works, Traffic
Engineering
GENERAL
35 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
- 11 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
36 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
37 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
38 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
39 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle gates shall not be installed
across the project driveway or access roads without prior City approval. Public Works,
Development Services
- 12 - PC2014-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 5
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00046)
(701 EAST CYPRESS STREET)
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. 17811
to establish a 38-unit residential subdivision for a proposed single-family residential project on
that certain real property located at 701 East Cypress Street 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. 17811 is proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2014-05753, Variance No. 2014-04982, and Reclassification No. 2014-00273 to
construct a 38-unit single family residential project (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project")
and is contingent upon the adoption by the City Council of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-
00120, an ordinance that will increase the permitted height of detached single-family residences
in the "RS-4" Single Family Residential and "RM" Multiple Family Residential Zones; and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with an industrial building. The
Property is located in the “RS-3” (Single Family Residential) and “I” (Industrial) zones. 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 Tentative Tract Map No. 17811;
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 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) the Proposed
Project will not have any significant effects on the environment, and no additional environmental
review is required under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 17, 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 38-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. 17811, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Low
Medium Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and, once Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2014-00120 has been adopted by the City Council, with the existing and
proposed zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.04 of the Code pertaining
to single-family detached projects within the "RS-4" Single 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 proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17811, 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. 17811, 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. 17811, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does hereby
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17811, subject to (1) the adoption by the City Council of an
ordinance reclassifying the Property to the "RS-4" Residential Single Family Zone in accordance
with Reclassification No. 2014-00273, (2) approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05753
and Variance No. 2014-04982, 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 Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00120, an ordinance that
will increase the permitted height of detached single-family residences in the “RS-4” Single
Family Residential and "RM" Multiple Family Residential Zones. 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
- 2 - PC2014-***
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
November 17, 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 November 17, 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 17th day of
November, 2014.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17811
(DEV2014-00046)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
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 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 Adele Street, Cypress and Private Streets,
name signs and the private street. The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map.
Public Works,
Development Services
4 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for improvements along the
frontage of Adele Street and the private streets. 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 streets. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City
Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. The improvements
shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public Works,
Development Services
5 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 The public alley right-of-way within the property boundary shall be
abandoned. The legal property owner shall submit an abandonment
application to Public Works for review and approval of City Council prior
to approval of the final map by City Council.
Public Works,
Real Property Services
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
7 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim on the final map an easement of 30-feet in width from the
centerline of Adele Street for road, public utilities, and other public purposes.
Public Works,
Development Services
8 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
9 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
10 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
11 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
September 9, 2014
Rudy Emami
Acting 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. Emami:
This letter serves as a formal request for a discretionary exemption from Engineering Standard Detail
No. 162 (Std. 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.
SC Land Project 6, LLC is proposing a for-sale infill residential project on 2.31 acres at 701 East Cypress
Street. The project will consist of 38 single-family homes, associated landscaping, interior and perimeter
fencing and private streets. There will be 30 three-story units and 8 two-story units. The City’s General
Plan designates the site for Residential (Low-Medium), allowing up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The
project will use the City’s recently adopted Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone. The purpose of
the RO Overlay is to provide “by-right” housing opportunities consistent with the underlying land
General Plan land use designation. The intent of the RO Overlay is to stimulate market-driven
development investment while concurrently facilitating new housing construction in furtherance of
Housing Element.
Std. 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:
2400 E. Katella Avenue • Suite 800 • Anaheim, CA 92806
www.development-advisors.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
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.
The project site is constrained by adjacent public streets, railroad right-of-way, and proximity to existing
homes. All of these adjacent uses require setbacks and land area in order to “fit” this infill project into
the existing neighborhood. As such, the building envelope of the site is significantly reduced and
accommodating private streets, landscaping, yards and building pads for the homes becomes difficult.
The proposed modification to Std. No. 162 carefully considered all of these factors. The proposed
design maintains the required pavement and sidewalk width, while reducing the parkway width by 3
feet. Following is the justification for the proposed private street modification:
• Private Street and Sidewalk Width – The proposed 28-foot private streets as well as the 4-foot
sidewalks on both sides of the streets meet the requirements outlined by Std. No. 162.
• Parkway – In order to achieve the street and sidewalk widths required by Std. No. 162, and
maintain acceptable setbacks to the existing single-family homes, the proposed parkway width
is 3 feet. The attached sketch demonstrates that the parkway has enough area to install and
maintain landscaping.
• Pedestrian Access – Residents of the development will have direct access to their two-car
garages and driveways, which will allow up to 4 cars to be parked at each home. In addition, the
proposed project has 4-foot sidewalks on both sides of the private streets that connect to the
neighborhood via sidewalks along Cypress Street and Adele Street.
• Precedence – One example of a recently approved project that has utilized a parkway less than
the required 6-foot width is Silveroak’s 25 unit single-family home project located at 3323 W.
Ball Road.
SC Land Project 6 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 Cross Section, Site Plan, Landscape Plan
Project Cross Section
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
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. 11
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00120 – TO
INCREASE THE PERMITTED HEIGHT OF DETACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE RS-4 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND “RM” (MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONES
LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Anaheim
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated amendment to Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to increase the permitted height of detached single-family
residences from two stories to three stories in the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential)
and “RM” (Multiple-Family Residential) Zones.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by
motion, determine that this action is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations on the basis that there is no possibility that the Zoning Code amendment
may have a significant effect on the environment, and recommend to the City
Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00120.
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2014, the Commission considered a City-
initiated zoning code amendment to increase the maximum permitted height of
detached single-family residences in the RS-4 zone from two-stories to three-stories,
and to allow tandem parking spaces in RM zones. The Commission recommended
City Council approval of the portion of the request to allow tandem parking spaces
in RM zones, but continued the portion of the code amendment pertaining to the
maximum permitted height of detached single-family residences in the RS-4 zone.
The Commission directed staff to establish more definitive criteria, including a
maximum height limit, for three-story residences.
PROPOSAL: Following is an overview of the proposed Code amendment:
Permitted Height in the RS-4 Zone: This amendment would increase the maximum
permitted height of residences in the RS-4 zone from 30 feet/two stories to 35
feet/three stories. The amendment would also establish a minimum setback of 55 feet
for a three story structure when adjacent to a single-family residential zone, consistent
with development standards required for multiple-family development.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00120
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Permitted Height in RM Zones: This amendment would increase the maximum height of
detached single family residences in RM zones from 30 feet/two stories to 40 feet/three stories.
The amendment would require three story homes to maintain the same setback requirements,
including a minimum setback of 55 feet from single-family residential zones, as required for
attached multiple-family residential units.
ANALYSIS: Staff has identified the need to update development standards relating to the
maximum permitted building height for residential development in response to changing market
conditions and site development constraints often encountered by developers of infill residential
development projects. It is common for attached residential projects, such as townhomes, to be
designed with three stories and the City’s multiple-family code standards are tailored to allow
such building heights as long as appropriate setbacks are maintained from adjacent sensitive land
uses such as single-family homes. There is an increased interest in designing compact single-
family homes with three stories. A detached single-family home development designed with
three stories is generally less visually obtrusive than an attached housing product designed at the
same height. Therefore, staff believes that applying the same height and setback restrictions for
a detached single-family product, as required for a multiple-family development, would allow
such homes to be built in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. In recent
years the City has seen an increase in residential development applications for vacant and
underutilized properties. These “infill” development proposals are often located on properties
with development constraints such as lot shape, lot size and proximity to sensitive adjacent land
uses such as single-family residences. As a result, staff has found that the current two-story
height limit presents a significant hurdle to the development of these properties. Staff believes it
is necessary to update the maximum permitted height of detached single-family residences to
maintain the viability of infill development.
The RS-4 Zone is intended to encourage the development of high-quality residential units on small
lots, in order to provide additional housing choices and use available land efficiently.
Development in the RS-4 zone is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit so any three
story homes proposed would be subject to review through a public hearing process. In this zone,
numerous development standards may be modified by conditional use permit, such as lot coverage
and setbacks. These modifications are permitted so that projects on smaller lots can incorporate
emerging designs and respond to market trends while maintaining a high quality project design,
privacy, livability and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Zoning Code limits the
height of structures in the RS-4 Zone to 30 feet and two stories. This amendment would allow the
height to be increased to 35 feet and three stories. Staff believes that three-story residences are
appropriate in the RS-4 zone in locations where homes would be adjacent to multi-family
residential uses with similar building heights, commercial or industrial uses where screening is
adequate to maintain privacy and quality of life for residents, or when developed with a minimum
setback of 55 feet from adjacent single family homes. This amendment would provide the
flexibility to permit projects with greater heights where deemed appropriate for the location.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00120
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 3
The RM Zones are intended to encourage the development of high quality, higher density housing
that complements the surrounding neighborhood. All development in the “RM-1" Zone, and any
development in the “RM-3" or “RM-4" Zones that includes single-family attached and single-
family detached dwellings, is subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Numerous
development standards may also be modified by conditional use permit, such as lot coverage and
setbacks in order to achieve a good project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with
surrounding uses. The RM zones currently limit the height of attached multiple family structures
to 40 feet or three stories; however, single family detached structures cannot exceed a height of
two stories or 30 feet. This amendment would allow the height of detached residences to be
increased to 40 feet or three stories as this revised standard would be consistent with the permitted
height for attached structures in the same zone. Staff believes that three-story detached homes are
appropriate in the RM zones. These structures would be subject to a minimum setback of 55 feet
from adjacent single family homes, and 20 feet from adjacent commercial, industrial, and multiple
family uses. This amendment would provide the Planning Commission with the flexibility to
permit detached three-story single family homes while protecting the interests of adjacent land
uses.
There are two residential development proposals on today’s agenda that are subject to the approval
of this code amendment. Item No. 9 is a 40-unit attached and detached single family residential
development in the RM-3 zone. Item No. 10 is a 38-unit single-family detached development that
includes three story residences in the RS-4 zone.
CONCLUSION: The proposed Code amendments would update the Zoning Code to reflect
current residential development trends and provide developers with increased flexibility to design
quality residential projects, while maintaining an appropriate level of discretion for the Planning
Commission. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend City Council approval of this
Zoning Code amendment.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING: (1) TABLE 4-F (MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL HEIGHT: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES) OF SECTION 18.04.070
(STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS) OF CHAPTER 18.04
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES) OF TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; (2) TABLE 4-I
(MINIMUM SETBACKS: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES) OF SECTION 18.04.100
(STRUCTURAL SETBACKS) OF CHAPTER 18.04
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES); (3)
SECTION 18.06.060 (STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS) OF
CHAPTER 18.06 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONES) OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE; AND (4) SECTION 18.06.160 (RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) OF CHAPTER 18.06
(MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES) OF TITLE
18 (ZONING) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
(ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00120)
(DEV2014-00119)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That Table 4-F (Maximum Structural Height: Single-Family Residential Zones) of
Section 18.04.070 (Structural Heights) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
Table 4-F
MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Zone Minimum Structural Height
Residential Single-Family Hillside
RH-1 25 feet/2 stories
RH-2 25 feet/2 stories
RH-3 25 feet/2 stories (certain areas subject to subsection .040 below)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Residential Single-Family
RS-1
35 feet/2-1/2 stories (Any non-residential land use permitted by a
conditional use permit may exceed this height limitation, as
determined by the approved conditional use permit, when the
required front, side and rear setback are increased an additional 1 foot
for each 4 feet in height such buildings exceed 35 feet)
RS-2 35 feet/2-1/2 stories
RS-3 30 feet/2 stories
RS-4
30 feet/2 stories; 35 feet/3 stories if the structure is located 55 feet
or more from the property line of any detached single-family
residential use or zone.
SECTION 2.
That Table 4-I (Minimum Setbacks: Single-Family Residential Zones) of Section
18.04.100 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18
of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
Table 4-I
MINIMUM SETBACKS:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES*
Zone Minimum Setbacks
Residential Single-Family Hillside
RH-
1
Front 20 feet
Side 15 feet
Rear Same as Front
RH-
2
Front 25 feet
In order to encourage varied setbacks where a tract or a
minimum of one block (one side of the street) is to be
2
developed concurrently; the setback shall be an average
of 25 feet, with the minimum setback of 15 feet.
Side
10 feet (properties with legal non-conforming side-yard
setbacks less than 10 feet may be expanded while
maintaining such legal non-conforming setback)
All dwellings shall maintain a minimum setback of 10
feet from any private access easement of record located
in the side yard.
Rear 25% of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 25 feet
All dwellings shall maintain a minimum setback of 10
feet from any private access easement of record located
in the rear yard.
RH-
3
Front 20 feet
Side
6 feet for a one-story structure; two-story structures must
have a combined side yard of not less than 15 feet;
however, neither side shall be less than 6 feet.
All dwellings shall maintain a minimum setback of 10
feet from any private access easement of record located
in the side yard.
The minimum street side setback on a reversed corner lot
or reverse building frontage lot shall be 9 feet.
Rear
15 feet; all dwellings shall maintain a minimum setback
of 10 feet from any private access easement of record
located in the rear yard.
Residential Single-Family
RS-1
Front 30 feet or 25% of the depth of the lot, whichever is less
Side 10% of the width of the lot, except that the side setback
shall not be less than 5 feet and need not exceed 10 feet.
The minimum street side setback on a reversed corner lot
or reverse building frontage lot shall be 9 feet.
Rear 25 feet or 25% of the depth of the lot, whichever is less
RS-2
Front 25 feet or 25% of the depth of the lot, whichever is less
3
Side 5 feet
The minimum street side setback on a reversed corner lot
or reverse building frontage lot shall be 9 feet.
Rear
25 feet, except that the depth may be reduced to 10 feet,
provided that dwellings or accessory structures shall not
occupy more than 35% of the required rear setback.
RS-3
Front 15 feet
In order to encourage varied setbacks where a tract or a
minimum of one block (one side of the street) is to be
developed concurrently, the setback shall be an average
of 15 feet with the minimum setback of 10 feet.
Side
5 feet from structures to the property line or for
development of an entire tract, zero feet on one side and
10 feet on the other side, provided a minimum of 10 feet
is maintained between structures on adjacent lots (the
latter requirement provides for zero side yards).
The minimum street side setback on a reversed corner lot
or reverse building frontage lot shall be 9 feet.
Rear 15 feet
RS-4
Front 10 feet
In order to achieve good design, the setback may be an
average minimum of 10 feet, with the minimum setback
of 5 feet.
Setback provisions may be modified pursuant to
18.04.160.
Side
5 feet from structures to the property line or zero feet on
one side, and 10 feet on the other side, provided a
minimum of 10 feet is maintained between structures on
adjacent lots (the latter requirement provides for zero
side yards); 20 feet from three-story structures to the
property line adjacent to a non-single family
residential use or zone, subject to the Structural
Height requirements in 18.04.070.010.
The minimum street side setback on a reversed corner lot
or reverse building frontage lot shall be 9 feet.
4
Setback provisions may be modified pursuant to
18.04.160.
Rear
10 feet for single-story structures; 15 feet for two-story
structures; 20 feet from three-story structures to the
property line adjacent to a non-single family
residential use or zone, subject to the Structural
Height requirements in 18.04.070.010.
Setback provisions may be modified pursuant to
18.04.160.
Airspace (Vertical) Subdivision. For three (3) dimensional airspace
subdivisions, the minimum setback between facing walls of two
dwelling units shall be the combined total of the required setbacks for
each building wall.
SECTION 3.
That Section 18.06.060 (Structural Heights) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family
Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is
hereby, amended to read as follows:
18.06.060 STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS.
The height requirements in this section for the multiple-family residential
zones apply in addition to the Structural Height Limitations in Chapter 18.40
(General Development Standards), and are also impacted by the minimum
structural setbacks, as required in Section 18.06.090.
.010 Height – Single-Family Detached. The maximum height for
single-family detached dwellings shall not exceed two (2) stories or thirty (30)
feet.
.0210 Height – Multiple-Family and Single-Family Detached Structures.
The maximum height for multiple-family and single-family detached structures
is shown in Table 6-F.
Table 6-F
MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT:
MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Zone Minimum Structural Height
RM-1 40 feet; but may be modified
pursuant to 18.06.160
RM-2 40 feet; provided, however, that
5
buildings exceeding 40 feet or 3
stories in height may be permitted
by conditional use permit.
RM-3
40 feet; provided, however, that
buildings exceeding 40 feet or 3
stories in height may be permitted
by conditional use permit.
RM-4
40 feet; provided, however, that
buildings exceeding 40 feet or 3
stories in height may be increased
to 4 stories by conditional use
permit.
.0320 Accessory Buildings. All accessory structures, including but not
limited to, garden and storage sheds and recreation structures, shall not exceed a
height of one (1) story or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less. (Ord. 5944 4;
September 28, 2004.)
.0430 Height Limitations Near Single-Family Residential Zones. The
maximum height of a building located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a
single-family residential zone is shown in the chart in subsection 18.06.090.040.
SECTION 4.
That Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit Development) of Chapter 18.06
(Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code be,
and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
18.06.160 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
.010 Residential Planned Unit Development. All development in the
“RM-1" Zone and any development in the “RM-3" or “RM-4" Zones that includes
single-family attached and detached dwellings shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Commission of an application for a conditional use permit. Except as
otherwise specified in this section, the application shall be processed pursuant to
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) and Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permit). Planned
Unit Development is defined in Section 18.92.90 (“P” Words, Terms and Phrases)
of Chapter 18.92 (Definitions).
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance hereby adopted be declared for
any reason invalid by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, it is the intent of
6
the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this ordinance independent of
the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City
shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances which violations were
committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or
penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this
ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted
by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and
continuations, and not as new enactments.
SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to
be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper
of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim, and thirty (30) days from
and after its final passage, it shall take effect and be in full force.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
7
///
///
///
///
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2014, and thereafter
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of
______________, 2014, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
__________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
______________________________________
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
105710-v1/TJR
8
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.