Loading...
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]HOŒ6SDQLVK/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 Lilac 2R/D/DŠ%RXJDLQYLOOHD Cordyline sp.Purple Dracaena PalmPittosporum tobira 'Wheeler's Dwarf'Dwarf Mock OrangeSchematic Planting PlanAnigozanthosKangaroo PawLantana camara 'Rose IMP' %DQGDQDŠ5RVH,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.