Loading...
PC 2015/04/06City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, April 6, 2015 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 websitewww.anaheim.net/planningon Thursday, April2, 2015, after 5:00 p.m. Any writingsor 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 planningcommission@anaheim.net e-mail address: 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, 10calendar days Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 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 raisingonly 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. AnaheimPlanning 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. 04/06/15 Page 2of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009Resolution No. ______ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763 VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970 (DEV2014-00085) Location:1480 South Harbor Boulevard Request: To demolish an existing freestanding restaurant Project Planner: and construct a new freestanding restaurant with an Elaine Thienprasiddhi outdoor dining area with fewer parking spaces than ethien@anaheim.net required by the Code and to bring the property into greater conformity with the intent of the Anaheim ResortSpecific Plan, with the addition of enhanced landscaping and removal of parking spaces within the front setback area. Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 340 is the appropriate environmental document for this project and that none of the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 340 have occurred. Continued from the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05788Resolution No. ______ VARIANCE NO. 2015-05008 (DEV2015-00027) Location:2830 East Gretta Lane Request: To permit an automotive repair facility with Project Planner: fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. Amy Vazquez avazquez@anaheim.net 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 Guidelinesas a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption. 04/06/15 Page 3of 5 ITEM NO. 4 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00278Resolution No. ______ (DEV2015-00030) Location: 1406, 1414, 1422 West Broadway, 318 South Hessel Street, 1280 West Santa Ana Street and 301, 305, 307 and 411 South Manchester Request: A City-initiated request to reclassify Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood properties from the Industrial (I) Zone to the Public vnorwood@anaheim.net Recreation (PR) Zone. Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (Previously-Certified) is the appropriate environmental determination for the proposed project. ITEM NO. 5 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00125 Motion (DEV2015-00032) Location:Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone Request: - A Cityinitiated amendment to Title 18 Project Planner: Scott Koehm (Zoning Code) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to skoehm@anaheim.net include a definition of “fireworks” and to permit the sale of fireworks as a temporary use within the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (Class 4 -Minor Alterations to Land) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Adjourn to Monday, April 20, 2015at 5:00 p.m. 04/06/15 Page 4of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy ofthis agenda was posted at: 3:30p.m.April 1, 2015 (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 hearingsaccessible 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. 04/06/15 Page 5of 5 ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSIONREPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:APRIL 6, 2015 SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763,VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970ANDFINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009 LOCATION: 1480 SouthHarbor Boulevard APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is ShaneHitzemanwith Pride Bakeries II, LLC dba Panera Bread,represented by Bill Fancher with Fancher Development Services. The property owneris JWMFE Anaheim, LLC, represented by Jacqueline Perry. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing freestanding restaurant (formerlyMillie’s) and construct a new freestanding restaurant (Panera Bread) with an outdoor dining area with fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. The project wouldbring the property into greater conformity with the intent of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan with the addition of enhanced landscaping and the removal of parking spacescurrently locatedwithin the front setback area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (SEIR 340) is the appropriate environmental document for this requestand approvingConditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763,Variance No. 2014-04970and Final Site Plan No.2014-00009. BACKGROUND: Thisrequest was continued from the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant, to resolve concerns pertaining to certain proposed conditions of approval. Thoseconcerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of staff and the applicant. This 4.2-acre parcel is currently developed with a470-room Fairfield Inn Marriott hotel and a vacant freestanding restaurant building.The project site is located within the boundaries ofthe AnaheimResort Specific Plan No. 92-2(ARSP),Commercial- Recreation (C-R) District(Development Area 1). The General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreational land uses. The property was developed prior to the establishment of the ARSPand was approved with a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than requiredby the Zoning Code. Various improvements onthe property do not conform tothe development standardsof the ARSP, particularly landscape setbacks. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763 April 6, 2015 Page 2of 3 Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are also designated for Commercial Recreation land usesby the Anaheim General Plan. Mimi’s Café and a hotel (under construction) are located to the north; McDonald’s and a hotel are located to the south;and a hotel and office building are to the east. The Disneyland Theme Park is located to the west, across Harbor Boulevard. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the 4,800 square foot restaurant building and construct a new 5,290 square foot Panera Bread restaurantwith a720 square foot outdoor patio. The new building would be closer to the street, immediately behind the required landscape setback, sothatno parking would belocated between the building and the street. The entrance to the restaurant is proposed at the southwest corner of the building. Access to the site is currently provided via two driveways along Harbor Boulevard.The southerly driveway allows entry only and the northerly driveway is exit only, with a motion controlled gate arm. No changes to the driveways are proposed.Changes to parking and circulation include removal of existing compact spaces adjacent to the existing building and replacing them with a row of angled parking stalls that meet current size standards. There are no changes to the parkingor circulation surrounding the existing hotel building. A total of 295 parking spaces are proposed for the restaurant and hotel. New landscaping is proposed within the public right-of-way, specifically,a new 8-foot parkway would be provided behind the sidewalk and would be planted withQueen Palms,a boxwood hedge and daylilies, in accordance with the ARSP Design Plan.The required 26-foot deep setback would be planted with turf in the foreground and a variety of shrubs and palm treesin the background. The majority of the building would be a stucco finish in a neutral color, with a raised corner element finished with cementboard panels in a light olive color. Windows would be treated with awnings and planted trellises would be attached to the windowless walls visible to Harbor Boulevard. The entry would include an eyebrow canopy with an angled sign area above. One wall sign is proposed and the panels on the existing monument sign would be updated to include PaneraBreadidentification. ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendations on the requested project. Final Site Plan:The ARSPrequires approval of a final site plan for all new development to ensure that the proposed design is appropriate for the site, compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with specific plan requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposal and supports the overall design, architecture, circulation and landscaping associated with the project.As discussed in the section below, the project brings this legal-nonconforming hotel and restaurant site into greater conformance with the requirements of the ARSP. Conditional Use Permit:The ARSP permits modifications to sites with legal non-conforming features subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, provided that the proposed changes would bring the site into greater conformance with the intent of the Specific Plan. The existing propertyis legal non-conforming with respect to landscape setbacks, parking lot landscaping, and parking stall dimensions. In the existing condition, several parking spaces encroach into the front VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763 April 6, 2015 Page 3of 3 setback area, landscaping adjacent to the street is minimal and there are fourteen parking spaces to the immediate north of the building thatdo not comply with City standards. The proposed plan provides fordedication and installation of required landscaping forthe eightfeet of public right-of- way behind the sidewalk, which is a requirement along this segment of Harbor Boulevard. The project would also includethe full 26-foot deep landscaped setback on Harbor Boulevard with no parking encroachments.The setbackwould includelayeredlandscapingrequiredbythe ARSP Design Plan.The project also complies with the required tree density requirements and the number of trees provided in the parking area surrounding the proposed restaurant. ParkingVariance:Based on the size of the proposed restaurant and number of hotel rooms and employees, the developmentrequires 454parking spacesto comply with theZoningCode.Atotal of 295 parking spaces would be provided. A parking study was prepared by LSA Associates(LSA) to determine whether the proposed number of spaces is adequate for the uses based on shared parking and off-set peak hours.Counts were taken at the existing hotel as well as at the adjacent Mimi’s Café parking lot. The study found that the peak demand for the hotel was in the early morning when most of the guests were in their rooms and hotel staff were arriving for work. The peak for the restaurant occurred during lunch hours. Combining the peak demand for each use resulted in a shared peak at 10:00a.m. and noon, with a demand of up to 256 parking spaces. Based on this information, the proposed parking of 295 spaces shouldbeadequate to meet the demand of the combined uses. Environmental Impacts:An initial study and various technical studies were prepared for this project. The initial study concludes that the proposed project is within the parameters, assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously-certified Master Environmental Impact ReportNo. 313 (MEIR 313) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No.340(SEIR 340).MEIR 313 was certified in September 1994 for the ARSP and SEIR 340 was certified in December 2012 for Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP. Staff has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Plan for this project, which includes all applicable mitigation measures from the mitigation and monitoring program approved in conjunction with SEIR 340. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The construction of the new restaurant and improvements to the site circulation and landscaping will upgrade the overall appearance of the property and enhance the visitor experience to the Anaheim Resort. Staff recommends approval of the final site plan, conditional use permit, and variance. Prepared by,Submitted by, Elaine ThienprasiddhiTed White Associate PlannerPrincipal Planner Attachments: 1.Development Summary 2.Draft Resolution 3.Parking Study 4.Initial Study Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Plan 5.Development Plans Photos 6. SP 92-2 DA1 HOWARD JOHNSON PLAZA HOTEL SP 92-2 DA1 MIMI'S CAFE SP 92-2 DA1 FUTURE HOTEL SP 92-2 SP 92-2 DA1 SP 92-1 DA1 QUALITY INN DA1 FAIRFIELD INN AND MILLIE'S HOTEL DISNEYLAND SP 92-2 SP 92-2 DA1 DA1 MCDONALD'S VOCATIONAL SCHOOL SP 92-1 DA1 SP 92-2 DA1 ANAHEIM CAMELOT INN & SUITES DISNEYLAND SP 92-2 DA1 CAROUSEL INN & SUITES SP 92-2 DA1 SYBRON DENTAL SPECIATIES SP 92-2 DA1 TROPICANA INN SP 92-2 DA1 BEST WESTERN PARK PLACE HOTEL 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 082-170-55 DEV No. 2014-00085 1480 South Harbor Boulevard ATTACHMENT NO. 1 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 082-170-55 DEV No. 2014-00085 1480 South Harbor Boulevard ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DEVELOPMENTSUMMARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009 Development StandardProposed ProjectARSP Standards Site Area4.2acres--- Front Landscape Setback26feet26feetminimum Front Landscape Tree 2,100 points1,958 points minimum Density Interior Landscape Setbacks2 feet, 4 inches(existing)*10feetminimum Building Height26feet75feetmaximum Parking295spaces**454spacesminimum *The existing interior landscape planters are legal-nonconforming. **The applicant requests a parking varianceto permit less parking than required by Code. [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 340 SERVESAS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009 AND MAKINGCERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2014-00085) (1480SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014- 05763,Variance No. 2014-04970 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00009to demolish an existing 4,800 square foot (approximate) restaurant building located on that certain real property at 1480 South Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”), and to construct in its place a5,290 square foot freestanding restaurant with a 720-square foot outdoor patio with fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code")(herein referred to as the "Proposed Project");and WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 4.2acres, is developed with a freestanding restaurant(to be demolished) and 470-room hotel. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Commercial Recreation land uses. The Property is located within the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) of the the Anaheim Resort Specific PlanZone andis, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards set forth in Section 18.116.070 (Uses – Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1)) of Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2)Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 1994, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to provide a long-range comprehensive plan for future development of approximately 549.5 acres surrounding The Disneyland Resort and Hotel Circle. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines, a streetscape program, and a public facilities plan, intended to maximize the area’s potential, guide future development, and ensure a balance between growth and infrastructure. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan permits the development of hotel, convention, retail, and other visitor-serving uses as well as the infrastructure improvements that are needed to support future development; and WHEREAS, in support of the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the City Council certified Master Environmental Impact Report (“MEIR No. 313”)by the adoption on September 20, 1994 of its Resolution No. 94R-234; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2012-158, the City Council certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2008-00340 ("Final EIR No. 340")(which Final EIR No. 340 -1-PC2015-*** included mitigation measures, a water supply assessment, a statement of overriding considerations and findings thereto),which reevaluated all of the environmental changes that had occurred in and around the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area since its adoption in 1994 and contained an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of various entitlements and actions referenced therein, including, inter alia, entitlements permitting the maximum build-out of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including an increase of up to 406,359 square feet of convention center space,180,000 square feet of commercial development, 900 hotel rooms, and 40,000 square feet of hotel meeting/ballroom space; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 23, 2014, which was continued to April 6, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice ofsaid public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763, Variance No. 2014-04970 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00009 to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQAGuidelines"), 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; and WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph .0204 (Environmental Review) of Subsection .020 (Final Site Plan Review and Approval) of Section 18.116.040(Methods and Procedures for Specific Plan Implementation) of Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2)Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that, in accordance withCEQA,the CEQA Guidelines,and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual,the approvals required under CEQA for the Proposed Project have been made pursuant to the prior certification of MEIR No. 313 and Final EIR No. 340, prior approvals of related resolutions and ordinances, and the prior filing of a notice of determination; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds and determines that Final EIR No. 340 will serve as the appropriate environmental documentation in connection with the Proposed Project and that none of the conditionsset forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement toFinal EIR No. 340have occurred;specifically: a.There have not been any substantial changes in the project analyzed in Final EIR No. 340that require major revisions of FinalEIR No.340because of new significant environmental effects or a substantialincrease in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b.There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Proposed Projectis undertaken that requiremajor revisions of Final EIR No. 340due to the involvement of new significantenvironmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and -2-PC2015-*** c.There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence atthetime Final EIR No. 340was certified as complete was adopted, that showsany of the following: (a) the Proposed Projectwill have one or moresignificant effects not discussed in Final EIRNo. 340; (b) significanteffects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in Final EIRNo. 340; (c) mitigation measures oralternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and wouldsubstantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed Project, but the projectproponents decline to adopt the mitigation measuresor alternatives; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in Final EIR No. 340 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on theenvironment, but theproject proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measuresor alternatives; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff 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; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 318 ("MMPNo. 318"), which is incorporated herein by this reference, and was prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures specific to the Proposed Project, and, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, finds and determines that,with the imposition of identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not result in any new significant impacts to the environment and there is no substantial evidence that the ProposedProject will have a significant effect on the environment; 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 proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763does find and determine the following facts: 1.The request to expand a nonconforming use or structure, including the construction of a freestanding restaurant in conjunction with an existing legal-nonconforming hotel, provided that the expansion brings the Propertyinto greater conformity with the intent of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan,is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Section 18.116.070(Uses –Commercial Recreation(C-R)District (Development Area 1))of Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code; and 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 Proposed Project is consistent and compatible with existing resort and tourism related uses in the zone; and -3-PC2015-*** 3.The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the Proposed Project would be adjacent to an existing restaurant to the south; and 4.The traffic generated by theProposed 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 and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use; 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 as the proposed land use will be integrated with the surrounding commercial area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim or the adjoining City. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for VarianceNo. 2014-04970to permit less parking than required by the Code in conjunction with proposed restaurant should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimum number of parking spaces. (454 spaces required; 295 spaces proposed) 1.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off- street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normaland reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use. A parking study was prepared by LSA Associates which determined that, based on the non-conflicting peak hoursforthe hotel and restaurant, shared peak parking demand is projected to be 256 parking spaces; and 2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed usebecause on-site parking will not increase or compete for on-street parking, since adequate parking is provided on-site to accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed indoor and outdoor smoking lounges in conjunction with an existing restaurant and the other uses on the site; and 3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity. The parking study demonstrated that there is adequate on site parking to meet the demands of the existing and proposed uses, such that parking should not impact other properties; and 4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and -4-PC2015-*** 5.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation. Additionally, the hotel valet station would be located a more than adequate distance from the public street such that vehicle queing would occur on-site and not affect pedestrian or vehicular circulation along Harbor Boulevard. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for approval ofFinal Site PlanNo. 2014-00009should be approved for the following reasons: 1.Subject to compliance with MMPNo. 318 and the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit Band incorporated herein by this reference, the Final Site Plan, including its design and layout, complieswith the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. SP92-2 and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Specific Plan,asdescribed in Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2)Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code,with the exception of the conditional use permitrequest as described herein. 2.The design and layout of the Proposed Project will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. 3.The architectural design of the Proposed Project is compatible with the character of the surrounding hotels and development located within the land area of theAnaheim Resort Specific Plan. 4.The design of the Proposed Project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained. 5.The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763, Variance No. 2014-04970 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00009, contingent upon and subject to MMPNo. 318 and the conditions of approval, which are described in Exhibit B, and attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said conditions 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. -5-PC2015-*** 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 2015. 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 -6-PC2015-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commissionof 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 April 6, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: NOES:COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this6day of April,2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -7-PC2015-*** -8-PC2015-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05763, VARIANCE NO. 2014-04970 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00009 (DEV2014-00085) Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 318: Mitigation Measures(“MM”)from Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 318 are incorporated into these conditions of approval. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 318includes all applicable measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C, adopted in conjunction with the certification of SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Report No. 340 (SEIR No. 340)for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. All mitigation measures are identified by the “MM” before the description of the requirement.Modifications to these bold measures are indicated as follows: additions are shown in and deletions are shown in strikethrough. Terms and Definitions: 1.Property Owner –JWMFE Anaheim LLC 2.Developer Pride Bakeries II, LLC 3.Project Site –The project site is the “Lease Property”area, identified on Figure 1, ALTA Survey. 4.Environmental Equivalent/Timing –Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City,which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shallbe borne by the developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted fee schedule. 5.Timing –The point in time where a condition of approval must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring will occur because routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent has been complied with. 6.Responsibility for Monitoring –Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. 7.On-going Conditions of Approval –The conditions that are designated to occur on an on-going basis will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the developer in Januaryof each year stating how compliance with the subject conditions have been achieved. When compliance with a condition related to on-going operation of a use has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the condition will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For conditions that are monitored “On- going During Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring will be discontinued after construction is complete. 8.That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with any and all direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting of all mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 318, established by the City of Anaheim as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified measures within the timeframes identified in the measure. 9 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. PRIOR TO FINALSITE PLAN APPROVAL MM 5.12-12: Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and prior to the Fire 1 issuance of each building permit, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department as being in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. MM 5.1-13: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that the rear Planning and 2 elevations of buildings visible from off-site areas shall be architecturally accented Building to portray a finished look. MM 5.12-1: Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and issuance of each Police 3 building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval for safety, accessibility, crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas). MM 5.15-5: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and building permits, plans Public 4 shall specifically show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other Utilities large water system equipment will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, aboveground and behind the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final building and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, in accordance with the Final Site Plan and the building permit plans. PRIOR TOISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Public Public Works 5 Works Development Services Division for review and approval the FinalWater Quality Management Plan that conforms withcurrent Orange County Guidelines and Requirements as well as the City’s WQMP Review Checklist. MM 5.16-1: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading Public Works 6 or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary sewer system deficiencies as follows: Theproperty owner/developer shall submita report for review and approval of the City Engineer to assist in determining the following: a.If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) does not increase flows or change points of discharge, then the property owner’s/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program. b.If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of 11 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. the City Engineer and the City Attorney of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the building/structure, whichever comes first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer, which may include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owner/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval whichshall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system, (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations, (3) construction phasing, and (4)construction estimates. The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total build out of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each hotel). MM 5.18-1: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of a grading 7Public or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall Works participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following: a.If the specificdevelopment/redevelopment does not increase or redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to provide stormdrainage facilities in 10-and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. Theproperty owner/developer shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10-and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, theproperty owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could 12 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. include fees, credits, reimbursements, or acombination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4)construction estimates. MM 5.7-4: Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever Fire 8 occurs first the property owner/developer shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite. MM 5.12-6: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property Fire 9 owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements. MM 5.3-2: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or Planning and 10 building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for Building vegetation removal activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed. If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present, then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the Biologist. MM 5.3-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or Planning and 11 building permit, whichever occurs first, a survey for active raptor nests shall be Building conducted by a qualified Biologist and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. Should an active nest be identified, restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist. These restrictions may include a 300-to 500-foot buffer zone designated around a nest to allow construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest. Once the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed within the buffer zone. MM 5.2-4: Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and Planning and 12 prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property Building owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site. 13 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. MM 5.5-6: Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property Planning and 13 owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Building Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. MM 5.15-8: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, Public 14 whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15E Utilities of the Public Utilities Department Water Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Rule 15E shall be amended to include: a.Construction of a new well with a minimum 1,500 GPM capacity to serve The Anaheim Resort Area (tentative location near Ponderosa Park and Orangewood Avenue); and b.Construction of a new 16-inch water main along Harbor Boulevard from Orangewood to Chapman Avenue. MM 5.8-1: Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever PublicWorks 15 occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a MasterDrainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Orange County (OC) Public Works/OC Engineering. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: a.Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and, b.A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project- generated drainage and runoff. MM 5.14-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property Public Works 16 owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department a plan to coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for review and a approval and shall implement ATN recommendations to theextent feasible. ONGOING DURING PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION MM 5.7-6: Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event that Fire 17 hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/orhazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code,Title 30, Chapter 22. ONGOING DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES MM 5.5-5: Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall Planning and 18 implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent Building erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OFTHE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT MM 5.14-14: Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, Public Works 19 whichever occurs first, security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter 14 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities and other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer. Installation of said improvements shall occur prior to final building and zoning inspections. The applicant shall submit street improvement plans for landscape and irrigation Public Works 20 to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee the construction of all public works improvements in an amount approvedby the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. The landscape and irrigation improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan for Harbor Blvd, and Public Works Landscape and Irrigation Manual for Public Street and Highway. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. MM 5.14-3: Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the Public Works 21 first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developershall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate in a signed deed to the City Public Works 22 of Anaheim an easement of variable width from the centerline of Harbor Blvd. that will provide an additional 8-foot right-of-way dedication for road, public utilities and other public purposes as required per the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Please refer to exhibit 4.4.12 of the ARSP. MM 5.12-9: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property Fire 23 owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid their fair share of the funding to accommodate the following, which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area: a.One additional fire truck company. b.One additional paramedic company. c.Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the additional fire units, additional manpower, equipment and facilities. d.A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable the Fire Department to provide heavy search and rescue response capability. e.A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma dressings, medical supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000 injured persons, and an appropriate storage facility. The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the property owner/developer shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such equipment/facilities among property owners/developers in the Hotel Circle 15 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. Specific Plan Area, theDisneyland Resort Specific Plan Area and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area or the otherwise defined service area, as applicable, depending on the area served. Note: To implement this mitigation measure, the City has adopted the Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee Program. Compliance with this Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No. 5496 and Resolution No. 95R-73 dated May 16, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing arrangements. MM 5.12-8: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted to Fire 24 ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including: a.Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads. b.Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department accessshall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75,000 pounds. c.All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the Fire Department. d.Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart. e.A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500gpm. MM 5.12-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Fire 25 owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with required fire flow. MM 5.12-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to Fire 26 the final building and zoning inspection, plans shall indicate that all buildings, exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. MM 5.12-14: Prior to approval of building plans, the property owner/developer Fire 27 shall provide written evidenceto the satisfaction of the Fire Department that all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with “knox box” devices as required and approved by the Fire Department. MM 5.2-6: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 28 owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are Building being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may 16 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. include, but are not limited to the following: a.Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors. b.Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c.Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design. d.Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water. e.To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center f.Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible. MM 5.15-4: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 29 owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be Building prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall indicate thatseparate irrigation lines for recycled water shall be constructed and recycled water will be used when it becomes available. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. MM 5.2-2: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 30 owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are Building utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. The information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall submit an architectural coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implementthe following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage: a. Use non-solvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate; b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary. MM 5.1-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar Planning and 31 pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans Building as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 17 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. MM 5.12-17: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 32 owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code Building Section 53080 (Schools). MM 5.1-12: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning Planning and 33 facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans Building as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. MM 5.10-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 34 owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Building Department, Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels from planned mechanical ventilation equipment, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive. MM 5.15-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than Planning and 35 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of Building pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer’s service. MM 5.17-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 36 owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Building Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent. MM 5.5-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 37 owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Building Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loadingand designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. MM 5.5-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property Planning and 38 owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnicalengineer. MM 5.1-11: Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate Planning and 39 previous payment, a fee for street tree purposes shall be paid or cause to be paid to Building the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer. MM 5.5-2: Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property Planning and 40 owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Building Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing. 18 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. MM 5.12-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall Police 41 include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department. MM 5.15-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning Public 42 forthe project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and Utilities final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department. MM 5.15-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented prior to Public 43 final building and zoning inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during Utilities 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. 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: a.Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems. b.Use of waterway recirculation systems. c.Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals. d.Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves. e.Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors. f.Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels. g.Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water- using appliances. h.Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest. i.Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation. j.Use of water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible. MM 5.15-6: Prior to issuance of each building permit, unless records indicate Public 44 previous payment, the appropriate fees for Primary Mains, Secondary Mains and Utilities Fire Protection Service shall be paid to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Divisionin accordance with Rule 15A, and Rule 20 of the Public Utilities Department Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. MM 5.14-2: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, Public Works 45 the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established. MM 5.8-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer Public Works 46 shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. MM 5.19-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to Public Works 47 final building and zoning Inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to: a.Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities. b.Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c.Complying with all Federal, State and City regulation for hazardous material disposal. d.Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City. In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but not limited to: a.Facilitating recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins. b.Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and storing. c.Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing. d.Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible toreduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required forcollection. e.Prohibiting curbside pick-up. MM 5.19-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall show that trash Public Works 48 storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Operations Division. On an ongoing basis, trash storageareas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. MM 5.19-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Property Public Works 49 owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments. MM 5.18-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require that Public Works 50 building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OFWATER PLANS MM 5.12-15: Prior to approval of on-site water plans, unless each commercial Fire 51 building is initially connected to separate fire services, an unsubordinated 20 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be recorded prohibiting any individual sale of buildings until separate fire services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale. MM 5.12-16: Prior to approval of water improvement plans, the water supply Fire 52 system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection services in accordance with Fire Department requirements. PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS ON A BUILDING SITE MM 5.12-13: Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site, an Fire 53 all-weather road shall be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section 10.204 of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Anaheim. ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION MM 5.10-1: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall Planning and 54 ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks Building are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. MM 5.2-3: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall Planning and 55 implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These Building measures shall include, but are not limited to: a.Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable. b.For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved. c.Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles. d.Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur. e.Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site. f.Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets. g.Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas. 21 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. h.Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. i.Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed. j.Reduce Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. k.Suspend all grading operations when windspeeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts. l.Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. m.Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable. n.Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. o.Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. p.Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. MM 5.10-7: Ongoing during construction and project operation, sweeping Planning and 56 operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed Building utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line. MM 5.10-6: Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing Planning and 57 operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other Building aesthetical considerations shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and8:00 PM. MM 5.10-8: Ongoing during construction, property owners/developers shall pay Planning and 58 for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include Building monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at any point on the exterior project boundary property line do not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day whereoutside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance. MM 5.14-7: Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or Police 59 the Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse Public Works the City, on a fair-share basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. 22 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS All required street and storm drain improvements shall be constructed prior to the Public Works 60 first final building and zoning inspections and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services inspector. All required site WQMP items shall be inspected and operational.Public Works 61 MM 5.12-10: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property Fire 62 owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations asapproved by the Fire Department. MM 5.1-7 and 5.8-4: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property Planning and 63 owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter Building from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with the Final Site Plan. MM 5.15-7: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate water meter Planning and 64 shall be installed for landscape water on all projects where the landscape area Building exceeds 2,500 square feet in accordance with Ordinance No. 6160. MM 5.1-6: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk Planning and 65 barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks. Building MM 5.8-5: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property Public 66 owner/developer shall install piping on-site with project water mains so that Utilities reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available. MM 5.14-4: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property ownerPublic Works 67 developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. MM 5.14-8: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner Public Works 68 shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: a.Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. b.Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project- generated trips. c.Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. MM 5.14-9: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property Public Works 69 owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons’ transportation options. These options may include, but are not limited to, the list 23 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. below. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. a.On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as the food, retail, andother services. b.Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare. c.Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs. d.Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. e.Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximityto the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for guests. f.Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offera bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. g.Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. h.Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. i.Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts. j.Compressed Work Week. Developa “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. k.Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). l.Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single- occupant auto to travel to work. m.Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles. n.Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees 24 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributionsto employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools. o.Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work. p.Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. q.Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. MM 5.14-21: Prior to the final building and zoning Inspection every property Public Works 70 developer owner and/or lesseeshall designate an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreementwith all of the project participants. ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS The developer shall ensure that areas used for hotel valet parking and self-parking Planning 71 allow for adequate available parking to serve the restaurant. Should parking overflow onto off-site areas, aParking Management Plan shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval to the Planning Department, Planning Services Division and Public Works, Traffic and Transportation Division that addresses the shared parking for the restaurant, hotel self-park and hotel valet park. MM 5.2-1: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall Planning and 72 implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods Building movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as practicable. MM 5.8-3: Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall Planning and 73 provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City Building of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited. MM 5.1-10: Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property Planning and 74 owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. Building MM 5.1-9: Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced Planning and 75 in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Building MM 5.1-8: Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and irrigation Planning and 76 systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within area in Building which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the property owner/developer,in compliance with City standards. 25 REVIEWSIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BYOFF BY NO. MM 5.1-3: Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the Planning and 77 removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application.Building MM 5.12-3: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall Police 78 provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area. MM 5.18-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require that Planning and 79 building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and Building urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies. MM 5.19-2: Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be Public Works 80 implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: a.Usage of recycled paper products for stationary,letterhead, and packaging. b.Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. c.Collection of office paper for recycling. d.Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. e.Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 26 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PARKING ANALYSIS PANERABREAD 1460SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA PARKING ANALYSIS PANERA BREAD 1460SOUTHHARBOR BOULEVARD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of Anaheim Planning Department 200South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, California92805 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California92614 (949)553-0666 Project No. AHM1401 January 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 Statement of Purpose.....................................................................................................................1 Project Description........................................................................................................................1 MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT..............................................................................4 DATA COLLECTION...........................................................................................................................4 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................4 Parking Generation Rates..............................................................................................................4 Shared Parking..............................................................................................................................5 Hotel Self/Valet Parking Ratio......................................................................................................7 Effects of Spillover Parking..........................................................................................................8 Parking Control...........................................................................................................................10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................11 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location......................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Stacking Distance..................................................................................................................12 TABLES Table A: Typical Parking Generation.....................................................................................................5 Table B: Shared Parking.........................................................................................................................7 Table C: Guest Parking Self/Valet Ratio................................................................................................8 Table D: Potential Spillover Parking at Mimi’s Café.............................................................................9 Table E: Trip Generation......................................................................................................................10 APPENDICES A:PARKING ACCUMULATION AND DRIVEWAY DATA B:GATE STACKING ANALYSIS i H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate parking demand and supply for an existing hotel and proposed Panera Bread restaurant located at 1480 South Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim (City). The analysis evaluates the parking conditions associated with shared parking between the Fairfield Inn (hotel)and proposed Panera Bread restaurant. Utilizing field observation and collected empirical data, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) analyzed both Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios for parking demand. Surveys of a similarneighboringMimi’s Café restaurant were used to calculate the variation in parking demand throughout the day that could be expected atthe proposed Panera Bread restaurant.Figure 1 illustrates the project location and the location of the neighboring Mimi’s Caférestaurant. Topics addressed in this analysis include: (1) the shared parking between the Panera Bread restaurant and hotel;(2) the ratio of self-parking to valet parking;(3) the effects of Disneylandparkingdemand spilling over onto nearby parcel;and (4) the effects of parking control. Project Description The parcel at 1480 South Harbor Boulevard was previously approved for a 470 room hotel and a 4,800 square foot (sf)high-turnover sit-down restaurant(Millie’sRestaurant and Bakery [Millie’s Restaurant]). The hotel operator, Fairfield Inn, is still active at this site. The Millie’s Restaurant is no longer open for business. Implementation of this proposedproject will demolish the 4,800 sf building and construct a new 5,290 sf Panera Bread restaurant with a 720 sf patio. Figure 2 provides the project’s site plan. The parcel has two driveways on Harbor Boulevard. One driveway is located on the south end of the parcel and is marked for entrance only. Another driveway is located on the north end of the parcel and is marked for exit only. Temporary barricades across half of the north driveway emphasize the exit- only function of this driveway. The project is not proposing to alter the driveways. Within the existing parking lot, 15 parking spaces werelocated in a separate section for the Millie’s Restaurant, 86 parking spaces are marked for valet only, 4 parking spaces aremarked for loading only, 42 parking spaces are marked reserved, and 161 parking spaces (including 8 handicap parking spaces) are available for hotel self-parking. In total, 308 parking spaces are available for vehicles to park. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed parking lot striping. Only the parking areas near Harbor Boulevard would require modification,as a result of relocating the Panera Bread restaurant building and providing standard-sized stalls in place of existing compact stalls.With these changes, 295 spaces are proposed. The project site is located within the Anaheim Resort, which offers a benefit from the amount of pedestrian traffic and a challenge due to the potential for parking demand from other land uses to spillover onto nearby parcels.Parking control (i.e., limiting accessto patrons of the land uses on site) is currently exercised through the use of a rolling valet stand. At the time LSA visited the site, the valet stand was located adjacent to the hotel, which would allow vehicles to enter the restaurant parking section without passing the valet stand. However, vehicles entering the restaurant parking section and the pedestrians exiting the vehiclewould be visible to the parking attendant.Parking control in the form of a parking attendant at a rolling valet stand is proposed under the project condition also. 1 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15»  *-+96) 0)+)2( 4VSNIGX4EVGIP 7YVZI]IH6IWXEYVERX 2 4ERIVE&VIEH  *))8 4VSNIGX0SGEXMSR 7396')+SSKPI)EVXL -@%,1@+@4ERIVE@0SGEXMSRGHV  LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT The project parcel is located within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Section 18.116.140.120 states that the off-street parking requirements found in AMC Section18.42.040 apply within the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The off-street parking requirements established in AMCSection18.42.040 state that hotels must provide 0.8parking space per guest room, 8 parking spaces per thousand square feet(TSF)of banquet/meeting space, and 0.25parking space per employee in guest room areas. The restaurant integrated into this planned development complex would require 8 parking spaces per TSF.For this project, 406 spaces are required for the hotel and 48 spaces for the restaurant. A total of 454 spaces are required.The project parcel has been in operation with 308 parking spaces. This parking analysis seeks to determine the parking needsat the existing hotel and at a similar nearby restaurantand applies those needs to the proposed operation. DATA COLLECTION LSA coordinated with an independent third-party data collection firm, National Data and Surveying Services, Inc. (NDS), to collect parking accumulation data at the project parcel (indicated in yellow on Figure 1) and atMimi’s Café located at 1400 South Harbor Boulevard(indicated in blue on Figure1). Mimi’s Café, like Panera Bread, is a high-turnover sit-down restaurant with a strong place in the breakfast market. Data within the project parcel (yellow) was separated by parking area(e.g., hotel self-parking, reserved parking, valet parking, etc.). Parking accumulation counts were conducted every half-hour between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 25, 2014,and Saturday, November 8, 2014. The survey results are available in Appendix A. Saturday, October 25, 2014,was the last Saturday of the Halloween season and a busy day in the Anaheim Resort.Saturday, November 8, 2014,represented a typicalweekendday. This data was used to examine the ratio of self-parking to valet and the effects of spillover parking. NDS also collected driveway volume data by placing video recording devices at the two driveways into the project parcel and the two driveways into Mimi’s Café. Data was collected for a 24-hour period on Thursday, November 20, 2014. This driveway data revealed trip generation and parking generation for both the hotel and restaurant uses ona typical weekday. A summary of the data collected is available in Appendix A. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Parking Generation Rates As mentioned above, video data at the driveways to the hotel and Mimi’s Caféwere used to calculate parking and trip generationfor the proposed Panera Bread restaurant use. The number of cars outbound from a site can be subtracted from the number of cars inbound to a site and the balance is the number of new cars accumulating on the site. For example, if 10 cars enter the site and 3 cars exit the site during a period, then 7 more cars would have parked on the site during that period. On November 20, 2014,the highest observed parking demand for the hotel was 277 vehicles at 5:30 a.m. The highest observed parking demand for Mimi’s Caféwas 64 vehicles at 12:00 p.m. Table A shows the parking rates resulting fromthese observations. 4 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Table A:Typical Parking Generation Land UseSizeUnitTypical Peak Parking Observed Demand Existing Hotel470Room277 Mimi’s Café6.674TSF64 Parking Rates Existing HotelRoom0.59 Mimi’s CaféTSF9.59 Parking Generation Existing Hotel470Room277 (470 rooms x observed rate of 0.59 space per room) Panera Bread6.010TSF48 (6.010 TSF x City rate of 8spacesper TSF) TOTAL325 City = City of Anaheim TSF = Thousand Square Feet The peak-parking rate for Mimi’s Café was observed to be approximately 9.6 parking spaces per TSF. This rate is 36 percent lower than the 15 spaces per TSF rate stipulated for stand-alone full-service restaurants in AMC Section 18.42.040. Mimi’s Café is located within its own parking lot, but within walking distance of many hotels. Panera Bread will also be located within walking distance of many hotels and within the same parcel as the Fairfield Inn. Because Panera Bread will be integrated into a planned development complex, the City’s rate of 8 parking spaces per TSF for full-service restaurants in planned development complexes should apply. Table A calculates the parking demand that is anticipated for the proposed PaneraBread restaurant use, utilizing the City’s rate. Parking was generated for the entire restaurant area (5,290 sf building and 720sf patio). As Table A shows, the Panera Bread restaurant use is anticipated to have a peak-parking demand for 48 parking spaces. Table A shows that, on a typical weekday, the sum of peak-parking demand for the hotel and Panera Bread restaurant would be 325 parking spaces. This exceeds the 311 parking spaces shown on the site plan. The two land uses will not be able to have theirown, separate parking areas within the site. However, peak demand for the hotel and restaurant occur at different times and sharing of parking spaces may be possible. Shared Parking Peak parking demand for the hotel occurred at 5:30 a.m. when most guests were in theirrooms and some hotel staff wasarriving for work.By 10:00 a.m., observed parking demand was approximately 80 percent of the peak demand. At noon, observed parking demand was 75 percent of peak demand. During dinner hours, observed parking demand was approximately 70 percent of peak demand. Exhibit 1 illustrates the observed variation in hotel parking demand. 5 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Exhibit 1: Hotel Parking Variation 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 At Mimi’s Café, parking demand during breakfast hours was highest at 10:00 a.m. This was 70percent of peak demand. Peak demand occurred during the lunch hours. Parking demand during dinner hours was highest at 7:00 p.m. Observed parking demand was approximately 50 percent of peak demand at 5:30 p.m., approximately 70 percent of peak demand at 7:00 p.m., and slightly over 50 percent of peak demand at 9:00 p.m.Exhibit 2 illustrates the observed variation in Mimi’s Café parking demand. Exhibit 2: Mimi's Cafe Parking Variation 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Table B shows the interaction of the varying intensity of parking demand for each land use. As TableB shows, the highest parking demand for the site is expected to occurbetween 10:00 a.m. and the 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. lunch hour. During that period of peak-parkingdemand, on a typical weekday, approximately 256vehicles would be parking on site. The proposed parking supply exceeds that typical parking demand. Table B:Shared Parking Calculated Shared Parking Summary Parking Peak Demand10:00 a.m.12:00 p.m.5:30 p.m.7:00 p.m.9:00 p.m. Hotel Observed Demand277223208193192200 Approximate Percent100%81%75%70%69%72% Future Demand277223208193192200 Restaurant Observed Demand 644364284234 (Mimi’s Cafe) Approximate Percent100%67%100%44%66%53% Future Demand 483248213225 (PaneraBread) Total325255256214224225 Hotel Self/Valet Parking Ratio Not all parking spaces are available to all users. Within the existing parking lot, 15 parking spaces wereset aside for the Millie’s Restaurant, 86 parking spaces are marked for hotel valet only, 4 parking spaces are marked for loading only, and 42 parking spaces are marked reserved leaving 161 parking spaces (including 8 handicap parking spaces) available for hotel self-parking. LSA focused onthe self-parking and valet parking spaces available to hotel guests to understand the desirability of one choice over the other. The purpose was to determine how many parking spaces should be allocated to each parking type withinthe proposed project. LSA examined the detailed parking accumulation data gathered on Saturday, October 25, 2014,and Saturday, November 8, 2014. As Table C indicates, approximately 60 percent of hotel guests choose self-parking and 40 percent choose valet parking. It should be noted that the number of vehicles in valet parking spaces can exceed the number of striped spaces because of double stacking.Table C also indicates that when guest parking demand exceeded self-parking capacity (Saturday, October 25, 2014,was a busy day in the Anaheim Resort), valet operations were able to absorb the additional demand.When parking spaces are allocated between Panera Bread, hotel operations, and hotel guests, this ratio of approximately 60 percent self-parking guests and 40 percent valet guests should be maintained. 7 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Table C:Guest Parking Self/Valet Ratio Valet Self-Parking ValetPercent Self-ParkingDemand Double Total Total Hotel Percent of Total of Total Hotel Demand in Striped Stacked Valet Guest Hotel Guest Guest 12 (161available)Demand TimeSpacesValetDemandDemandDemand Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:00 p.m.15277108723964%36% 4:30 p.m.15280109024263%37% 5:00 p.m.14982119324262%38% 5:30 p.m.15183109324462%38% 6:00 p.m.15182109224362%38% 6:30 p.m.15383109324662%38% 7:00 p.m.15284149825061%39% 7:30 p.m.15484139725161%39% 8:00 p.m.15585109525062%38% 8:30 p.m.15884119525362%38% 9:00 p.m.159851610126061%39% 9:30 p.m.159861810426360%40% 10:00 p.m.160861810426461%39% Saturday, November 8, 2014 4:00 p.m.1237017119463%37% 4:30 p.m.1177317419161%39% 5:00 p.m.1177217319062%38% 5:30 p.m.1227327519762%38% 6:00 p.m.1247527720162%38% 6:30 p.m.1307627820863%38% 7:00 p.m.1347648021463%37% 7:30 p.m.1377948322062%38% 8:00 p.m.1358028221762%38% 8:30 p.m.1368128321962%38% 9:00 p.m.1458328523063%37% 9:30 p.m.1498228423364%36% 10:00 p.m.1488128323164%36% Average62%38% Notes: 1 161 Self-Parking spaces include153 regular spaces and 8 handicap spaces. 2 Valet vehicles can exceed striped parking spaces due to double stacking. Effects of Spillover Parking Most parcels along Harbor Boulevard exercise some form of parking control (typically gated access or a parking attendant) to discourage parking demand spilling over from the Disneyland Resort. Spillover parking demand could come from either all-day parking seeking to avoid parking fees or short-term parking seeking to avoid delay. The Disneyland Resort provides a drop-off/pick-up parking lot along Harbor Boulevard. This lot has recently been altered to remove striped parking spaces and replace them with curbside waiting areas. Both prior to restriping and currently, drivers experience delay when attempting to use the drop-off/pick-up area during the peak times for dropping off and pickingup. The desire to avoid delay could attract drivers to an alternative drop-off/pick-up location. 8 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA LSA compared parking data collected on a busy day in the Anaheim Resort, Saturday, October 25, 2014 (the Saturday before Halloween is likely to be particularly busy with parents picking up in the late afternoon and early evening), and a typical day, Saturday, November 8, 2014. LSA used this data to quantify how much short-term parking demand might spill over onto the project site if no parking control were in place. LSA looked specifically at two parking areas. First, the 15 parking spaces near the closed Millie’s Restaurant might attract drivers seeking a potential alternative pick-up location. Second, the uncontrolled Mimi’s Café parking lot might attract drivers seeking a potential alternative pick-up location. Hotel parking spaces were not considered for this portion of the exercise as they are affected by room occupancy and the parking attendant. Weather was similar on these two Saturdays. Variation in parking demand in these two lots from one Saturday to the other should be due primarily to changes in demand for short-term parking at Disneyland. Upon receiving the results of the parking surveys, it became apparent that the spaces near Millie’s Restaurantare not currently affected by spillover short-term parking. One vehicle was observed in that lot on Saturday, October 25, 2014,and up to three vehicles were observed in that lot on Saturday, November 8, 2014. It is possible that the presence of the parking attendant discourages spillover parking even when drivers do not have to drive past the attendant. Table D provides a comparison of observed parking demand at Mimi’s Café.This parking lotis located at the corner of Harbor Boulevard/Manchester Avenue and is about a quarter-mile farther walk compared to the official drop-off/pick-up area. Table D reveals that parking demand was similar on the compared Saturdays between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and again after 9:00 p.m. However, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. parking demand was higher on the holiday Saturday. This would indicate that this parking lot could have been affected by spillover short-term parking demand. The number of additional cars appears to be 5-6 on average during this period. If the proposed Panera Bread did not have any form of parking control, it might also be subject to similar spillover short-term parking on busy days in the Anaheim Resort. However, it should be reiterated that the data suggests that the project site is notcurrently subject to spillover short-term parking. Table D:Potential Spillover Parkingat Mimi’s Café Saturday, October 25, 2014Saturday, November 8, 2014 Possible TimeRegularHandicapTotalRegularHandicapTotalSpillover 4:00 p.m.2502524125- 4:30 p.m.2422626026- 5:00 p.m.2022220020- 5:30 p.m.2212329029- 6:00 p.m.35237321334 6:30 p.m.38240331346 7:00 p.m.41243360367 7:30 p.m.38139331345 8:00 p.m.39140322346 8:30 p.m.40141342365 9:00 p.m.3223431233- 9:30 p.m.3403434337- 10:00 p.m.2502525126- 9 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Parking Control The previous section identified the potential for spillover parking in the absence of parking control. While it can be effective at managing parking utilization, the use of parking control can slow the entry of vehicles into the parking lot resultingin vehicles queuing. Parking queues that reach a public street can interfere with traffic flow and are a hazard. LSA reviewed the proposed location of the rolling valet stand and the number of inbound trips to determine whether queues would be contained off the street. The first step to identifythe potential for vehicle stacking is to calculatethe number of trips entering the site. As was previously mentioned, driveway volume was collected at the hotel and at Mimi’s Café to determine the trip generation potential of a hotel and restaurant in this area of the Anaheim Resort. Table E presents the trip generation calculations. Table E:Trip Generation AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour SizeUnitADTInOutTotalInOutTotal Observed Trips Existing Hotel470Room995364379355287 Mimi’s Café6.674TSF815261339202444 Trip Rates Existing HotelRoom2.120.080.090.170.070.110.19 Mimi’s CaféTSF122.123.901.955.843.003.606.59 Trip Generation Existing Hotel470Room995364379355287 Panera Bread6.010TSF734231235182240 TOTAL1,72959551145374127 ADT = Average Daily Traffic TSF = Thousand Square Feet Table E shows that operation of the existing hotel and the Panera Bread restaurant is expected to generate 1,729 trips each day. Of those trips, 114 would occur in 1 hour during the morning commute period and 127 would occur in 1 hour during the evening commute period. During the highest hour for inbound volume, which is expected to occur in the morning, 59 vehicles are expected to enter the site. If evenly spread out, this would be about 1 vehicle per minute. The time it takes for each vehicle to enter the site will determine how many vehicles may be queued waiting to enter. In order to determine the potential queues that may form at the driveway entryway, the methodology described in Robert Crommelin’sEntrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilitieswas used to prepare this study. Worksheets related to the Crommelin analysis are included in Appendix B. The highest inbound volume typical expected was compared to the service rate for an information booth with directions needed(14.8 seconds per vehicle).The average queue lengths anticipated were calculated based on the Reservoir Needs versusTraffic Intensity chart in the Crommelin report. On average,a queue of one vehicle is anticipated. The maximum queue, whichwould not be exceeded 95percent of the time,is two vehicles. 10 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA LSA performed a sensitivity analysis where trip generation was increased by 25 percent to simulate more hotel traffic during the high season. The results of this sensitivity analysis identified a maximum queue of three vehicles. Results of the sensitivity analysis are also included in Appendix B. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed location of the rolling valet stand and the stacking distance from the valet stand to the street. Due to the high pedestrian activity in the Anaheim Resort, it is desirable to avoid blocking the sidewalk with the queue. Figure 3 shows that 72 feet (ft) are provided between the sidewalk and the proposed location for the valet stand. The sidewalk and landscape setback provide an additional 16 ftbefore reaching thestreet. The 72 ftprovided between the valet stand and sidewalk should be enough space for three vehicles to queue. Therefore, based on the results of the Crommelin methodology, adequate storage is availableonsite to accommodate the average queue and maximum th 95percentile queue.However, the valet stand could be placed at the far end of the restaurant building without affecting the ability to control access to the parking lot. A valet stand in this location would provide 112 ftbetween the valet stand and sidewalk and would provide greater assurance that vehicle queues would not reach Harbor Boulevard. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study provides an analysis of parking demand and supply for an existing hotel and proposed Panera Bread restaurant located at 1480 South Harbor Boulevard. The analysis evaluated the parking conditions associated with shared parking between the hotel and restaurant utilizing field observation and collected empirical data. Surveys of a similar neighboring restaurant wereused to calculate parking generation for the proposed restaurant. The analysis concluded that sufficient parking is provided on site to allow for shared parking between the hotel and restaurant during typical and peak operationsince the hotel and restaurant peak times do not conflict. After reviewing existing and future parking conditions, LSA makes the following recommendation: The rolling valet stand should be placed at the eastern end of the Panera Bread building to maximize the potential vehicle queue without interference with the street or sidewalk. AParking Management Plan should be preparedby the applicantto show the location of reserved spaces, valet spaces, and self-parking spaces and how the areas may shift depending upon the needsof the hotel and restaurant. 11 H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» v v v *-+96) 0)+)2( 0SGEXMSRSJ6SPPMRK:EPIX7XERH 2 4ERIVE&VIEH  *))8 7XEGOMRK(MWXERGI 7396')%VG:MWMSR-RG -@%,1@+@4ERIVE@7XEGOMRK(MWXERGIGHV  LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.PARKING ANALYSIS JANUARY 2015PANERA BREAD CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A PARKING ACCUMULATIONAND DRIVEWAY DATA H:\CASES\DEV Projects\DEV2014 Cases\DEV2014-00085 (eyt)\3rdSubmittal\Environmental & Tech Reports\Panera Parking Analysis Final.docx «03/06/15» %44)2(-<&  +%8)78%'/-2+%2%0=7-7 4@%,1@4ERIVE@4ERIVE4EVOMRK%REP]WMWHSG\Ÿ 8EFPI%+EXI7XEGOMRK%REP]WMW 8EFPI%4VSNIGX8VMT+IRIVEXMSR %14IEO,SYV414IEO,SYV -R3YX8SXEP-R3YX8SXEP 0ERH9WI7M^I9RMX%(8  3FWIVZIH 6SSQ )\MWXMRK,SXIP 87* 1MQM W'EJÍ 8VMT6EXIW 6SSQ )\MWXMRK,SXIP 87* 1MQM W'EJÍ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Û7IVZMGI6EXITIVXLIw6IWIVZSMV2IIHWZW8VEJJMG-RXIRWMX]xXEFPIMRXLI'VSQQIPMRVITSVX  2YQFIVSJJIIXMRHMGEXIHMRXLIw6IWIVZSMV2IIHWZW8VEJJMG-RXIRWMX]xXEFPI FEWIHSRXLILMKLIWXSJXLI%1ERH418VEJJMG-RXIRWMX] JIIXIUYEXIWXSZILMGPI  %ZIVEKIMWXLIVIWIVZSMVVIUYMVIHJSVXLIEZIVEKIUYIYIXL MWXLIVIWIVZSMVVIUYMVIHWSEUYIYIHSIWRSXI\GIIHXLIVIWIVZSMVXMQIWMR 1MR!QMRYXI JX!JIIX 4@%,1@4ERIVE@'VSQQIPMR\PW@+EXI7XEGOMRK%REP]WMW  8EFPI&7IRWMXMZMX]%REP]WMW 8EFPI&4VSNIGX8VMT+IRIVEXMSR %14IEO,SYV414IEO,SYV -R3YX8SXEP-R3YX8SXEP 0ERH9WI7M^I9RMX%(8  3FWIVZIH 6SSQ )\MWXMRK,SXIP 87* 1MQM W'EJÍ 8VMT6EXIW 6SSQ )\MWXMRK,SXIP 87* 1MQM W'EJÍ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Û7IVZMGI6EXITIVXLIw6IWIVZSMV2IIHWZW8VEJJMG-RXIRWMX]xXEFPIMRXLI'VSQQIPMRVITSVX  2YQFIVSJJIIXMRHMGEXIHMRXLIw6IWIVZSMV2IIHWZW8VEJJMG-RXIRWMX]xXEFPI FEWIHSRXLILMKLIWXSJXLI%1ERH418VEJJMG-RXIRWMX] JIIXIUYEXIWXSZILMGPI %ZIVEKIMWXLIVIWIVZSMVVIUYMVIHJSVXLIEZIVEKIUYIYIXL MWXLIVIWIVZSMVVIUYMVIHWSEUYIYIHSIWRSXI\GIIHXLIVIWIVZSMVXMQIWMR 1MR!QMRYXI JX!JIIX 4@%,1@4ERIVE@'VSQQIPMR\PW@7IRWMXZMX]%REP]WMW  ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CASE NOS.: Final Site Plan No. 2014-00009, Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763, Variance No. 2014-04970, Development Project No. 2014-00085 SITE ADDRESS: 1480 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 APNs: 082-17-055 LOCATION: West side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 250 feet south of Manchester Avenue 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. Aesthetic / Visual Agricultural & Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas EmissionsHazards & Hazardous MaterialsHydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral ResourcesNoise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed ProjectCOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Projectcould have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Projecthave been made by or agreed to by the Projectproponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed ProjectMAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed ProjectMAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on 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 Projectcould have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentiallysignificant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) 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. March 13, 2015 Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Susan Kim, Acting Principal Planner (714) 765-4958 Printed Name, TitlePhone Number - 1- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : 1)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2)A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3)Response column heading definitions: Potentially Significant Impact a)is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)is required. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated b)applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”.The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Less Than Significant Impact c)applies where the Projectcreates no significant impacts, only “Less Than Significant impacts”. No Impact d)applies where a Projectdoes not create an impact inthat category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 4)Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (§15062(c)(3)(D)).In this case, a brief discussion should identifythe following: Earlier Analysis Used. a)Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. b)Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation Measures. c)For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project. 5)Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6)The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. -2- Project Setting The project site is located at 1480 S. Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim.The 4.2-acre parcel is currently developed with an eight-story, 470-room hotel and 4,800 square foot freestanding restaurant. The parcel is located within the Commercial Recreation (CR) District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zone.The General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreation land use. Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are also designated for Commercial Recreation land use by the Anaheim General Plan. Mimi’s Café and a hotel (under construction) are located to the north; McDonald’s and a hotel are located to the south; and a hotel and office building are to the east. The Disneyland Theme Park is located to the west, across Harbor Boulevard and is within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP92-1) Zone. The subject property,in its existing condition,is shown in Figure 1-Existing Conditions on Page 4. The project site is limited to the lease area to be developed with the new restaurant, shown inFigure 2–ALTA Survey, Project Site. -3- Figure 1 –Existing Conditions -4- Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a720 square foot outdoor patio, within the same general area of the property.The parking lot immediately surrounding the proposed building would be reconfigured to eliminate parking from the front setback area and existing compact parking stalls would be reconfigured to comply with current parking standards. There are no changes proposed to the existing hotel or the parking areas immediately surrounding it.The proposal includes a total of 295 parking spaces to be shared by restaurant patrons, hotel self-parking and hotel valet parking.Variance 2014-04970 is requested to provide for a total of 295 parking spaces rather than the 454 required spaces (Hotel: 406; Restaurant: 48). The parking study demonstrates that there is enough parking on-site as the peak times of the hotel and restaurant do not overlap. The shared parking peak is 256parking spacesfrom 10:00am-12:00pm. The property has two driveways on Harbor Boulevard, with the south driveway marked for entrance only and the north driveway marked for exit only, with an automatic gate armat the exit. Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05763 is requested in order to modify a legal-nonconforming property and bring the site into greater conformance with the requirements of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The front setback area would be landscaped to comply with the design criteria of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Additionally, the 8-foot wide parkway behind the sidewalk would be planted with Queen Palms, a Japanese Boxwood hedge and Daylilies. New landscaping will be provided within the parking area and surrounding the building, including a green screen adjacent to the north and south elevations. Signage for the new restaurant includes one wall sign oriented toward the southwest. A panel on the existing monument sign would also be provided for the restaurant. The subject property was reclassified to the CR District of the SP 92-2 Zone in September 1994, concurrent with the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) and the certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (MEIR No. 313). This master environmental impact report has served as the environmental documentation for projects that are implemented in accordance with the ARSP. The analysis in MEIR No. 313 was recently supplemented by the certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No.340 (SEIR No. 340), adoptedin December, 2012. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (adopted in conjunction with the certification of SEIR No. 340). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant. -6- I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible 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? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.1. According to SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area does not contain any scenic resources, nor are any scenic vistas visible from the ARSP area; therefore, no impact would occur. Future development and redevelopment associated with buildout of the ARSP area would change the existing visual character of individual areas; however, buildout of the ARSP area would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation program. The proposed project would not impact any scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding area. The architecture would blend in with the existing adjacent buildings and enhance The Anaheim Resort with an aesthetically pleasing structure. The new structure would be similar to the existing structure in size and mass, and would not negatively affect the shade/shadows on the adjacent hotel structures or developments in either the summer or winter months. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identifiedin the previously certified SEIRNo. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth inMitigation Monitoring Plan 318,created for this projectfrom Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this projectand impacts would beless than significant. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES-- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: Impacts analyzed LessThan Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? -7- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Narrative Summary: NoImpact(a –e). The project area is not located in an area with agricultural or forest uses. There is no unique, prime or farmland of statewide importance located within the project area. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the project area. No impacts would occur. III. AIR QUALITY --Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to makethe following determinations. Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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? -8- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No.340 addressed the air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.2. SEIR No. 340 concluded that, with implementation of all identified mitigation measures, mass emissions resulting from construction-related activities would be less than significant. However, because of uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of emissions for possible projects, it was concluded that cumulative emissions from construction would be significant and unavoidable.It was also concluded that local concentrations of particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance thresholds for short-term periods when excavation would occur near sensitive receptors; the impact would be significant and unavoidable.The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Emissions of criteria pollutants resulting from operation of the full buildout of the ARSP would exceed the SCAQMD applicable thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5. Operation would result in direct and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts. Because implementation of the ARSP could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, SEIR No. 340 concluded that the ARSP could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Construction and operation of the ARSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant toxic air contaminants (TACs); would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO local concentrations; and would not create objectionable odors. These impacts would be less than significant. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, theair quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the developmentof up toapproximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the0.64acre restaurant portionof the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio,within the same general area of the property.As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximumamount of developmentanalyzed in SEIR No. 340. The proposed project would not result in any construction or operational impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2).Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United StatesFish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identifiedin local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? -9- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservationpolicy 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? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 addressed the potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.3. SEIR No. 340 identified that the ARSP area is located within an urbanized area of the City with no Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species as listed in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or as designated by the California 1 Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Further, SEIR No. 340 concluded that the ARSP area does not function as a migratory corridor or a native wildlife nursery site and no impact would occur. The proposed project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and no significant plant or animal resources are located on or within the immediate vicinity. There are no wetlands or wildlife corridors or nurseries on or in the vicinity of the site. In addition, the site is not located within a designated HCP or NCCP area. The proposed project wouldnot result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5? 1ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ ‹•Šƒ†‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡‹•’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›‘™ǡƒ†”‡ˆ‡””‡†–‘‹ ‘Ǥ͹ͺͶǡƒ•–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ ‹•Šƒ†  -10- 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? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 addressed the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.4. According toSEIR No. 340, no designated historical resources exist within the ARSP area. Further, no resources are anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area. SEIR No. 340 concluded that there is no evidence of human remains in the ARSP area and that adherence to Section 5097.98 of the California PublicResources Codeand California Health and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Codewould ensure that a significant impact would not occur. The proposed project site is urbanized and no known cultural resources are located on or in the vicinity of the site.There are no historic structures on the site. In addition, there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources. And there are no known burial sites on the proposed project site. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2).Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? -11- 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? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the geotechnical and soils impacts related to the implementation of the AnaheimResort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.5. SEIR No. 340 identified active and potentially active faults in the region that could result in seismic-related impacts to future development projects associated with the buildout of the ARSP. Seismic events along these faults have the potential to result in strong ground motion. SEIR No. 340 concluded that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of project specific mitigation measures(if required); conformance with the applicable requirements listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code; and with conformance to the California Building Code. As noted in SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area is located in a relatively flat area with minimal potential for erosion impacts due to the high amount of urban development and low amount of bare ground. However, during demolition and construction activities when areas are exposed to erosion and loss of topsoil, adherence to the followingwould ensure that impacts would be less than significant: local and State codes and requirements for erosion control and grading; compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the subsequent development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2).Project impacts would be less than significant. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? -12- Narrative Summary: Less Than SignificantImpact. Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed thepotential impacts fromgreenhouse gas emissions related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.6. SEIR No. 340 concluded that although the proposed project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and although feasible mitigation measures would be incorporated into the proposed project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the 0.64 acre restaurant portion of the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio, withinthe same general area of the property. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR No. 340. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340.Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2).Project impacts would be less than significant. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 §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 (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport),would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? -13- 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? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.7. According to SEIR No. 340,buildout of the ARSP would have the potential to disturb lead-based paints (LBP) and asbestos- containing materials (ACM) depending on the age of existing structures in the ARSP area. The existing building on the site that is to be demolished was constructedin 1988, after issuance of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asbestos and lead standards for the workplace, there is no risk of exposure to asbestos-containing materials or lead- based paint. With implementation of mitigation, including compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law, potential impacts related to hazardous material on or near the ARSP area would be reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth inMitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 forthe Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 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? -14- 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? 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) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by seiche or mudflow? k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the hydrology and water qualityimpacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.8. According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP project would result in short-term construction-related and long- term operational water quality impacts. However, implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with the standard requirements reduces these impacts. Althoughdirect impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would not occur, indirect impacts associated with the anticipatedincrease in long-term demand for domestic water, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities would be significant. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources. As identified in SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP project would result in site-specific changes to drainage patterns on development sites, butwould not adversely impact regional hydrology or drainage flows in the surrounding area. It was found that potential increases in impervious surfaces could increase runoff rates and volumes, while reducing potential for soil erosion. Additionally, the ARSP project has the potential to increase runoff volumes and rates to exacerbate existing deficiencies, potentially leading to localized street flooding. Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Project Name: Panera Bread Bakerywas prepared for the proposed project. Proposedon-site drainage of the improved area generally maintains the same drainage pattern as pre- project drainage: All site drainage (building, rooftop, parking and drive area, walkways) drain to the east or west then to the south. In the proposed project, runoff from replaced parking and driveway on the west side of the building and building rooftops would be directed to an underground infiltration basin on the southwest of the site. Only excess runoff will overflow to an existing catch basin nearby in existing driveway entrance via a 4” overflow pipe. Runoff from the northerly portion of replaced parking and sidewalk area next to the building is directed to the west into a shallow above-ground infiltration basin (Rain Garden), and only excess (bypassed) runoff will overflow to the existing nearby catch basin via a 4” outlet pipe. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth inMitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. -15- X. LAND USE AND PLANNING --Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/Nonewimpacts .SEIR No. 340 analyzed the land use impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.9. SEIR No. 340 concluded that the build out of ARSP would be consistent with the respective goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents. Specifically, the ARSP build out was found to be consistent with and supportive of the three key principles set forth in the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: mobility, economy, and sustainability. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 provided a consistency analysis with all relevant goals and policies identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previouslycertified SEIR No. 340. No impacts would occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project area is not located in an area with active mining operations. According to the California Department of Mines and Geology, there are no mineral resources or mining operations located within the project area. No impacts would occur. -16- XII. NOISE --Would the Project result in: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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? 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 (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport),would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would theproject expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the noise impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.10. SEIR No. 340 determined that construction activities associated with the ARSP have the potential to significantly impact noise-sensitive receptors. In addition, construction in the ARSParea would have the potential to cause vibration levels that would be noticeable for short periods. Development associated with the ARSPwould createlong-termland use compatibility issues related to noise and would expose receptors to noise levels in excess of established standards, thereby resulting in potentially significant impacts. However, it was determined that adherence to the standard requirements and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce long-term, operational impacts. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the noise analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the construction and operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the 0.64 acre restaurant portion of the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and constructa new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio, withinthe same general area of the property.As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR No. 340. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation MonitoringProgram No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2).Project impacts would be less than significant. -17- XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Wouldthe Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No impact. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the population and housing impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.11. There is no housing located on the proposed project site. In addition, no housing or people would be displaced due to project construction.The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. No new impacts would occur. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES-- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed theimpacts onpublic services related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.12. SEIR No. 340 determined development of the project area would have a substantial demand for fire and police protection services and would indirectly result in the demand for school services, parks, and libraries. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the public services analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the 0.64 acre restaurant portion of the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio, withinthe same general area of the property.As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR No. 340 and, -18- thus, would not exceed the maximum amount of public services analyzed. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed theimpacts to recreationand recreational facilities related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.13. No new housing would be constructed that would increase the demand for recreational parks or facilities as a result of the proposedproject.Therefore, theproposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. No new impacts would occur. XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC-- Wouldthe Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 componentsof 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 tolevel 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 those results in substantial safety risks? -19- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? 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? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.14. As evaluated in SEIR No. 340, traffic impacts associated with buildout of the ARSP would result in significant impacts at 21 area intersections, 1 arterial segment, and 3 freeway ramp termini intersections. However, after implementation of the identified mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for all but nine intersections (Euclid Street/Katella Avenue, Disneyland Drive/Ball Road, Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue, Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road, Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Orangewood Avenue/State Route [SR] 57 Southbound Ramps) and 1 ramp termini intersection (Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound Ramps). It was identified that these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable because of the infeasibility of mitigation measures due to high project cost or the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential deficiencies. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 indicated no impacts would occur on intersections identified in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County. The proposal includes a total of 295 parking spaces to be shared by restaurant patrons, hotel self-parking and hotel valet parking. Variance 2014-04970 is requested to provide for a total of 295 parking spaces rather than the 454 required spaces (Hotel: 406; Restaurant: 48). The parking study demonstrates that there is enough parking on-site as the peak times of the hotel and restaurant do not overlap. The shared parking peak is 256parking spacesfrom 10:00am-12:00pm.In addition, this project will not create more than 100 peak hour trips, therefore additional traffic analysis was not necessary. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the traffic analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the 0.64 acre restaurant portion of the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio, withinthe same general area of the property.As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR NO. 340and, would not exceed the maximum amount of tripspreviously analyzed. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. -20- XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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 (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities)or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require orresult 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 (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code §21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? Narrative Summary:Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed theimpacts toutilities and service systems related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.15. SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would exceed capacities of existing water facilities; however, the projected water demand associated with buildout of the ARSP would be accommodated through existing and projected -21- supplies. According to SEIR No. 340, the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would not be exceeded by buildout of the ARSP. SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would increase sewage flows in existing sewer lines and trunks serving the area, resulting in several sewer lines becoming deficient; however, this impact would be mitigated to less than significant level. Additionally, it was determined that build out of the ARSP evaluated in SEIR No. 340 would increase sewage flows by approximately 323,656 gallons per day (gpd) in thePR District and 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in the C-R District and that these increases in sewage flow would be accommodated by available capacity at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plant No. 1. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP area would result in an increased demand for electricity. Compliance with the standard requirements and implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce anticipated demand through conservation efforts. It is expected that the existing electrical distribution system and future planned improvements would adequately accommodate the anticipated demand. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP has the potential to worsen several existing deficiencies in the City’s storm drain system. However, participation in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program would assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies. According to SEIR No. 340, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) indicated that natural gas service to the ARSP can be provided from an existing gas main that is accessible from various locations in the ARSP area. The service would be provided in accordance with the SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. Buildout of the ARSP wouldgenerate an estimated109,514pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 19,986 tons of solid waste annually. Buildout of the ARSP would add approximately 19,986tons of solid waste annuallyto existing solid waste facilities and capacity, which would impact the landfill system. However, the buildout of the ARSP could be accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County’s landfill capacity. In addition, once the Alpha Olinda Landfill closes in 2021, capacity would exist for buildout of the ARSP in the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. AT&T would serve the ARSP area. According to SEIR No. 340, it was determined that AT&T can provide telephone, digital cable, and high-speed internet servicesand that the ARSP area canbe served by Time Warner Cable with the existing cable resources available to the site. The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the utilities and servicesanalysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 48 hotel rooms, or 28,800 square feet of visitor serving uses, on the 0.64 acre restaurant portion of the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,800 square foot restaurant and construct a new 5,290 square foot restaurant with a 720 square foot outdoor patio, withinthe same general area of the property.Asa result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR NO. 340 and therefore, would not exceed the maximum demand for utilities and service systemspreviously analyzed. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. -22- XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Impacts analyzed Less Than Potentially Less Than in SEIR Significant No Significant Significant Environmental Issues No. 340 with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation No New Impact 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? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the project’s impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan 318, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant. -23- References Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Accessed on March 11, 2015. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008. California Department of Conservation(DOC). Agricultural Preserves 2010 Status Report, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County, California. Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Documents/2010%20Williamson%20Act%20Status%20Report. pdf DOC. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County.2010. DOC. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. April 15, 1998. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. 1996. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal. Accessed on March 11, 2015. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.Accessed March 11, 2015. California Department of Transportation. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) [Scenic Highway] Routes. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Accessed on March 11, 2015. California Geologic Survey. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. September 11, 2008. City of Anaheim (Anaheim).2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. Anaheim. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. April 2013. Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. Available at: http://www.anaheim.net/planning/aRT/PlanCouncil-May2010.pdf. Accessed onMarch 11, 2015. Anaheim. General Plan Circulation Element Green Element: Mineral Resource Map Noise Element. Pg. N-9 Safety Element: Dam Inundation Map Anaheim. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330.May 25, 2004. Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Anaheim.Municipal Code. 1974; updated as recently as February 2013. Anaheim. Sewer Capacity Map. LN Civil Engineers, Inc, Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Project Name: Panera Bread Bakery. September 9, 2014 Orange County Public Works. Drainage Area Management Plan. 2003. Orange County Transportation Authority. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. 2011. -24- Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. 2008. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2015. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2007-air-quality-management-plan. Accessed onMarch 11, 2015. SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.Amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.Accessed on March 11, 2015. State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Pg. 4. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean November 27, 2002. Water Act). -25- Panera - Anaheim 01/27/15 Botanical Name:Platanus X acerifolia Common Name: London Plane Tree Plant Type:Habit: TreeBroad Plant Size: 25-40'Light green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/an/a Sun: Full sun Water: Light water Soil Type: All soils Poor soil Neutral pH London Plane Tree is a fast growing, deciduous tree that reaches a size 40'-80' high by 30'-40' wide. Its leaves are 3-5 lobed, with a width of 4"-10". This plant is tolerant of most soils, smog, dust and reflected heat. Botanical Name:Tecoma stans v. stans Common Name: Yellow Bells Plant Type:Habit: ShrubBroad Round Plant Size: 6-12' 12-25'Dark green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: YellowSpring Summer Fall Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Well-drained soil Dry soil Neutral pH This semi-deciduous shrub or small tree will grow 12' x 6'. It produces beautiful yellow bell-like flowers that bloom in spring and fall. Botanical Name:Buxus microphylla japonica Common Name: Japanese Boxwood Plant Type:Habit: ShrubUpright Plant Size: 1-3' 3-6'Green Light green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/an/a Sun: Full sun Half sun Shade Water: Medium water Soil Type: Sandy soil Clay soil Loam soil Average soil Neutral pH Basic pH Japanese Boxwood is often used as a hedge. It is compact, with small bright green leaves. It can reach 4'-6' tall and wide or be kept smaller through pruning. It can be sheared to shape. It does better in areas with milder winters. Leaves may turn bronze in cold weather. Botanical Name:Hemerocallis 'Yellow' Common Name: Yellow Daylily Plant Type:Habit: PerennialUpright Plant Size: 1-3'Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: YellowSpring Summer Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Extra summer water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Rich soil Poor soil Well-drained soil Any soil pH These summer-blooming perennials form clumps with large, grass-like leaves. Its showy flowers, resembling lilies, are borne in clusters on stems held well above the foliage.- Greenwood Daylily Gardens Created with GardenSoft PlantMaster - www.gardensoft.com 1 Panera - Anaheim 01/27/15 Botanical Name:Nandina domestica Common Name: Nandina, Heavenly Bamboo Plant Type:Habit: ShrubIrregular Upright Plant Size: 3-6'Light green Bronze Red Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: WhiteSpring Summer Sun: Full sun Half sun Shade Water: Light water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Neutral pH Nandina domestica is a graceful upright shrub that grows from 3'-6' in height. It gets its name from its bamboo-like growth habit. When thinned from the center it bears a remarkable resemblance to bamboo. It is best used in groups. It can be used in a shaded patio or out in a shrub border with full sun. An interesting feature of Heavenly Bamboo is the bronze color in the new growth when planted in Botanical Name:Pennisetum setaceum Common Name: Tender Fountain Grass Plant Type:Habit: Perennial Annual GrassArching Round Upright Plant Size: 1-3'Green Purple Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: PurpleSummer Sun: Full sun Water: Drought tolerant Light water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Poor soil Neutral pH Basic pH This perennial grass reaches a size of 5' tall and wide, and is grown for its feathery plume-like seed heads. The plant should receive sun with little or no summer watering. Heavy seed head production can make this grass very invasive. Remove flower plumes before seeds mature to check their spread. Botanical Name:Philodendron 'Xanadu' Common Name: Xanadu Philodendron Plant Type:Habit: ShrubMound Plant Size: 1-3'Dark green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/an/a Sun: Half sun Shade Water: Medium water Soil Type: Loam soil Moist soil A dense mounding shrub growing 3 ft. tall, 5 ft. wide with glossy, dark green leaves. A popular understroy & border plant; can also be used in raised planters and containers for tropical effects. Cold hardy to 25-28 degrees Botanical Name:Rhaphiolepis indica Common Name: Indian Hawthorne Plant Type:Habit: ShrubMound Plant Size: 1-3'Dark green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: PinkWinter Spring Fall Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Light water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Dry soil Neutral pH This small shrub will grow 2' tall and 4' wide. It has small, dark green leaves that get a red tint in the winter and deep pink flowers that bloom fall through spring. Created with GardenSoft PlantMaster - www.gardensoft.com 2 Panera - Anaheim 01/27/15 Botanical Name:Rosa 'Iceberg' Common Name: Iceberg Floribunda Rose Plant Type:Habit: ShrubUpright Plant Size: 1-3'Dark green Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/aIntermittent Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: Loam soil Average soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Neutral pH This is a shrub rose (there are climbing varieties) with an abundance of fragrant, medium sized, white blooms. It is one of the most popular roses and very tough. Botanical Name:Strelitzia reginae Common Name: Bird Of Paradise Plant Type:Habit: ShrubUpright Vase Plant Size: 3-6'Grey green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Blue Orange WhiteIntermittent Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: Loam soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Moist soil Acid pH This shrub will grow to 6' tall and has large, gray green fronds with orange, blue, white, or multi-colored flowers that bloom throughout the year. Botanical Name:Agapanthus hybrids Common Name: Lily of the Nile Plant Type:Habit: Shrub Ground coverArching Plant Size: 1-3'Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Blue WhiteSpring Summer Sun: Full sun Half sun Shade Water: Light water Medium water Extra summer water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Neutral pH This evergreen ground cover/shrub will grow about 3' tall and has large green leaves with blue flowers (there is a white variety and dwarf varieties) that bloom in spring and summer. It will grow in all soils but prefers loam soil. Botanical Name:Begonia semperflorens Common Name: Bedding Begonia Plant Type:Habit: Perennial AnnualMound Plant Size: Under 1'Dark green Green Light Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Pink Red WhiteIntermittent Sun: Half sun Shade Water: Medium water Soil Type: Rich soil Well-drained soil Gorwn in garden beds & containers like annuals, producing lots of small flowers in white thourgh red range. CAn be used as a winter annual in hotttest climates. Foliage can be green, red, bronze or variegated. In mild winter climates, can live for years. Prefer filtered shade Created with GardenSoft PlantMaster - www.gardensoft.com 3 Panera - Anaheim 01/27/15 Botanical Name:Cuphea hyssopifolia Common Name: Hawaiian Heather, False Heather Plant Type:Habit: Shrub PerennialUpright Plant Size: Under 1' 1-3'Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Pink Purple WhiteSpring Summer Fall Sun: Full sun Half sun Shade Water: Medium water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Well-drained soil Dry soil Neutral pH A shrubby dependable evergreen perennial that grows to 2' tall and 4' wide, the False Heather bears small, closely-set leaves and tiny rose red flowers. It heaviest bloom period occurs in summer, with some flowers present almost all year. The plant requires part shade to shaded conditions, with average watering. This variety does well in containers. Botanical Name:Gazania rigens Common Name: Trailing Gazania Plant Type:Habit: Ground cover PerennialHorizontal Plant Size: Under 1'Green Silver Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Orange YellowWinter Spring Sun: Full sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Neutral pH This trailing groundcover grows at a moderate rate to 8" x 18". Leaves are silver to green. Billiant daisylike flowers come in many colors orange, bronze and yellow. Long bloom season from late winter to spring. Grows well in most soil conditions, and needs only occassional water once established. May die out if overwatered. Native to South Africa. Botanical Name:Impatiens walleriana Common Name: Impatiens, Busy Lizzie Plant Type:Habit: Ground cover Perennial AnnualMound Plant Size: Under 1' 1-3'Dark green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Lavender Orange Pink Red VioletSummer Fall Sun: Full sun Half sun Shade Water: Medium water Heavy water Soil Type: Loam soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Moist soil Acid pH Neutral pH This ground cover will grow up to about 3' tall and has small, glossy, dark green leaves with lavender, orange, pink, red, violet, or white flowers that bloom in summer and fall. Botanical Name:Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Common Name: Prostrate Rosemary Plant Type:Habit: Shrub Ground cover HerbMound Prostrate Plant Size: 1-3'Dark green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: BlueWinter Spring Summer Sun: Full sun Water: Light water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Poor soil Well-drained soil Dry soil Neutral pH The 'Prostratus' grows to a height of 2'-3' with a spread to 8'. Its flowers are pale, lavender blue in color; the leaves are needle-like with a dark, blue-green color. This plant makes a good groundcover, and its leaves can be used as seasoning in cooking. It has very aromatic leaves. Created with GardenSoft PlantMaster - www.gardensoft.com 4 Panera - Anaheim 01/27/15 Botanical Name:Distictis buccinatoria Common Name: Scarlet Trumpet Vine Plant Type:Habit: VineClinging Plant Size: 6-12' 12-25'Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: Red YellowIntermittent Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: Sandy soil Loam soil Average soil Well-drained soil Neutral pH This evergreen vine is highlighted by large, blood red, trumpet-shaped flowers with a yellow throat. These flowers will continue to appear throughout the warm months. Botanical Name:Rosa banksiae 'Lutea' Common Name: Yellow Lady Banks' Rose Plant Type:Habit: VineTwining Plant Size: 6-12' 12-25'Light green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: YellowSpring Summer Sun: Full sun Half sun Water: Light water Medium water Extra summer water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Rich soil Well-drained soil Dry soil Neutral pH This semi-evergreen rose can climb to 20'-30' and has double, non-scented yellow flowers. Botanical Name:Syagrus romanzoffianum Common Name: Queen Palm Plant Type:Habit: Tree PalmUpright Plant Size: 25-40'Light green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/an/a Sun: Full sun Water: Light water Medium water Extra summer water Soil Type: Loam soil Average soil Well-drained soil Neutral pH Basic pH This palm has a very straight trunk to about 50' in height. It has arching, feathery, bright green, glossy leaves that can be 10'-15' long. It is fragile in heavy winds and a fast grower. It will become damaged in temperature below 24 degrees F. Botanical Name:Washingtonia robusta Common Name: Mexican Fan Palm Plant Type:Habit: PalmIrregular Upright Plant Size: 12-25' 25-40'Green Leaf Color: Flower Color:Flower Season: n/an/a Sun: Full sun Water: Medium water Soil Type: All soils Average soil Well-drained soil Neutral pH The Mexican Fan Palm is a very tall, rapidly growing palm with large, fan-shaped leaves. It has a tropical look, and can grow several feet a year. This species is excellent for larger yards and lining streets. Created with GardenSoft PlantMaster - www.gardensoft.com 5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 2 ITEM NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:APRIL 6, 2015 SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05788AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05008 LOCATION: 2830 East Gretta Lane APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Theapplicantis Unitrax, represented by Phillip Schwartze,andthepropertyowneris TaorminaIndustries. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of aconditionalusepermitto establish anautomotive differentialrepair and sales facility for commercial and personal vehicles. The applicant also requests a variance to allowfewerparking spacesthan required by the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution,determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,Existing Facilities)and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05788and Variance No. 2015-05008. BACKGROUND: This 0.6-acre property is developed with a10,190square foot industrial building and is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 1-Industrial (SP94-1, DA1).The General Plan designates this property for industrialuses.Surrounding land uses are industrial in all directions. PROPOSAL : The applicant would like to relocate an existingautomotive differential and drive trainsales andservicebusinessto this property.The business sells new and used differentialsand provides repair services mainly for commercial customers, with a small portion of the business providing repairs for the general public. Most differentialsare removed from commercial vehicles off-site and delivered to the business for repair, although occasionally differentialsare removed and installed on- site. The building includes a large warehouse, offices, storage and a break room.The property also has existing outdoor storage areas that are completely screened from view. No exterior or interior changes to the building are proposed at this time.The hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,with a 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. maximum of sevenemployees. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05788 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05008 April 6, 2015 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS : Conditional Use Permit:The sales, warehousing, and modification of differential and drivetrains are permitted by right in this zone. However, the on-site vehicle repair component of the business operation requires approval of a conditional use permit in order to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. The propertyis surrounded by industrial land uses.The property is large enough to allow circulation of vehiclesand equipment without impacting surrounding properties. The building has three large loading doors that areideal for access to the interior of the building. All vehicle repairswould be conducted indoorsand the majority of differentials would be shipped to the facility and repaired on benches.This business has been in operation at a different location in Anaheim for several years and has received no Code complaints regarding the operation of the business. Parking Variance:The Zoning Code requires 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for automotive repair. The proposed differential repair facility would require a total of 36 parking spaces. The property currently has 11 spaces. The applicant has submitted a parking justification analysis that indicates the majority of the business is for commercial vehicles and large differentials that are typically delivered on a pallet for repair. The 11 outdoor parking spaces would only be utilized by seven employees and a limited number of customers. Site inspections ofthe existing Unitrax facilitylocated on Sunshine Way in Anaheim indicates that there are no more than four parking spaces being utilized at one time.Staff has conducted field observations and verified the availability of adequate parking during peak hours at this existing facility.Based upon the parking demand identified intheparking analysis and staff observations, staff recommends approval of the parking variance as the parking spaces available on-site are adequate to accommodate the demand. CONCLUSION :Staff believes the business is compatible with the surrounding industrial land uses. In addition, there is adequate parking to accommodate the proposed use.Therefore, staff recommends approval of the parking variance and the conditional use permit. Prepared by,Submitted by, Amy VazquezTed White Associate Planner, Lilley Planning GroupPrincipal Planner Attachments: 1.Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution 2.Applicant’s Request Letter 3.Parking Justification Letter 4.Photographs 5.Site Planand Floor Plan SP 941 DA1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 94-1 DA1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SP 94-1 SP 94-1 DA1A DA1A INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 SP 94-1 DA1A DA1A INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1 DA1A INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A DUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1 INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 DA1A SP 94-1 ANAHEIM DISPOSAL DA1A SP 94-1 INDUSTRIAL DA1A INDUSTRIAL 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 344-051-08 DEV No. 2015-00027 2830 East Gretta Lane 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 344-051-08 DEV No. 2015-00027 2830 East Gretta Lane [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2015-05788AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05008 AND MAKINGCERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00027) (2830 EAST GRETTA LANE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05788to permitdifferential repair and sales facility for commercial vehicles and automobiles, and (ii) Variance No. 2015-05008to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at that certain real property at 2830 East Gretta Lanein the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.6 acres in size and is currently developed with an industrial building. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Industrialland uses. The Property is located in the Industrial Area (Development Area 1) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area and is subjectto the zoning and development standards of Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP 94-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code. The underlying base zone for the Property is the "I" Industrial Zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 6, 2015at 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) ofthe Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposedConditional Use Permit No. 2015-05788 and Varaince No. 2015-05008, 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 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-PC2015-*** 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05788, does find and determine the following: 1.The request for a conditional use permit to permit a differential sales and repair facility is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorizedby Code Section No 18.120.050.050.0505, subject to the imposition of conditions of approval. 2.The conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area because the Property is developed with an industrial building and is surrounded by other industrial uses. 3.The size and shape of the Property is adequate to allow the full operation of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and general welfare. 4.The traffic generated by the use would notimpose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the transmission repair facility only services large commercial transmissions that are delivered to the site. 5.The granting of ConditionalUse Permit No. 2015-05788 under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, based upon the parking justification letter submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimumnumber of parking spaces. (36 spaces required; 11spaces proposed) 1.Based, in part, upon a review of the findings of a parking justification analysis submitted by the applicant, that the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because majority of the repair would be for commercial vehicles and the repairs to the general public would be minimal; 2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed automotiverepair facility; -2-PC2015-*** 3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the automotiverepair facility will adequately accommodate peak parking demands of the use on the site; 4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular 5. ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and,therefore,will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the industrial property. 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. No. 2015-05788and Variance No. 2015-05008, contingent upon and subject totheconditions of approval set forthin Exhibit Battached heretoand incorporated herein by this reference, whichare hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property underVariance No. 2015-05008andConditional Use Permit No. 2015-05788in 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 isestablished that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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-PC2015-*** BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED 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 April 6, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of theAnaheim 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-PC2015-*** 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 ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on April 6,2015by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: NOES:COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6day of April, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5-PC2015-*** -6-PC2015-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2015-05008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05788 (DEV2015-00027) RESPONSIBLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT NO. OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1. The trash enclosure shall be maintained in a location acceptable to Public Works the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in Department, Streets and accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Sanitation 2. All requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any Public Utilities modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water Department, Water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 3. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent Planning Department, area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or Code Enforcement painted over within 24 hours of being applied.Division 4. All work shall be conducted wholly within the building.Planning Department, Planning Services Division 5. The building shall be equipped with a comprehensive security alarm Police Department, system (silent or audible) for the following coverage areas:Planning & Research Unit The perimeter of the building anaccess route protection High valued storage areas Interior building door to shipping and receiving area 6. The applicant shall complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit Police Department, application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department Planning & Research prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Unit Department front counter, or it can be emailed to applicant by contacting Officer Budds at mbudds@anaheim.net. 7. Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter shall be painted Police Department, on the roof of the office building. The addresses shall have a Planning & Research minimum size of 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the Unit numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers shall be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers shall be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from ground level. -7-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT NO. 8.Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds Police Department, contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient Planning & Research wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the Unit presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 9. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Planning Department, and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively Planning Services referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any Division and all claims, actionsor proceedingsbrought 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. 10. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the Planning Department, processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the Planning Services issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building Division permits for this project, whichever occurs first.Failure to pay all charges shall result in delaysin the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. 11. The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance Planning Department, with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by Planning Services the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Division Department, and as conditioned herein. -8-PC2015-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 March 30, 2015 LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION-PARKING CONDITONAL USE PERMIT 2830 E. Gretta Lane Unitrax Drive train has an existing facility in Anaheim at 1280 N. Sunshine Way, in an industrial area.Unitrax is a local Orange County company that wishes to relocate to a bigger and more modern facility at the building vacated by DARTCO transmission repair, who relocated to an even larger facility. The existing Unitrax drive train facility has operated for a number of years and done so without complaint. Unitrax rebuilds large vehicle and automotive differentials and drivelines on vehicles which arefully removed and placed on the bench, therefore very few inoperable vehicles require temporary parking. The “on- vehicle” repair work requires Unitrax to have new vehicle lifts installed in the building.Unitrax also sellsrelated differential and driveline parts on both a resale (90%) and retail (10%) basis. The Zoning Code requires 36 parking and 11 are provided. 11 spaces is more than adequate since Unitrax works on commercial drive trains, a specialty repair, which does not have the need for extensive customer parking due to their unique business clientele. There are a total of seven employees and the remaining parking spaces are more than sufficient for the limited number of customers. The Anaheim Municipal Code does not differentiate between heavy vehicle and auto repair specialties such as the drive trainrepairs to the general public; therefore the application for an automobile parking standard is inappropriate for their particular type of business and limited employee base. The 2830 Gretta Lane building is ideally suited for the business relocation and provides the room needed for internal storage and expansion. The available parking at the new Gretta Lane building is double the parking that is available at the existing Sunshine Way facility and more than adequate to meet their well proven parking needs for working personnel and occasional drive up commercial or public clients. The existing zoning provides for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for various automotive repair facilities so that the City might apply appropriate conditions of approval to assure land use compatibility. The size and shape of the new existing building and the high ceilings, 17’, easily accommodate lifts and the 3 large loading doors provide excellent interior access for large vehicles. 31103 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite D-2260,SanJuan Capistrano, CA 92675 Office 949-240-1322 Cell 949-300-8619 phillip@prsgrp.biz A Conditional Use Permit, with the appropriate conditions of approval, will assure the continued success of the Anaheim business. 31103 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite D-2260,SanJuan Capistrano, CA 92675 Office 949-240-1322 Cell 949-300-8619 phillip@prsgrp.biz ATTACHMENT NO. 4 2830 Gretta Lane 2830 Gretta Lane 2830 Gretta Lane 2830 Gretta Lane 2830 Gretta Lane 2830 Gretta Lane 79&4%2)0 City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:APRIL 6,2015 SUBJECT:RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00278 LOCATION: 1406, 1422 West Broadway, 318 South Hessel Street, 1280West Santa Ana Streetand 301 South ManchesterAvenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicantand property owner isthe City ofAnaheim. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to reclassify the subject parcelsfrom the Industrial (I)Zone to the Public Recreation (PR)Zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that the previously certified EIR 330 is the appropriate environmental determination for this requestand approvingReclassification No. 2015- 00278. BACKGROUND: Thisapproximate8.8acre site consistsof fiveparcelsandis bounded by Broadway to the north, Manchester Avenue to the east, Hessel Streetto the westandSanta Ana Street to the south. These properties aredeveloped with aCity owned public park(Betsy Ross Park), vacantlandand industrial buildings.The surrounding land uses includeindustrial uses to the west across Hessel Street,Betsy Ross Elementary School to the south, Southern Pacific Railroad yard to the north across Broadway and the Interstate 5 Freeway to the east across Manchester Avenue.A Union Pacific Railroad spur bisectsa portion of the sitenear the eastern property boundary. Currently, there are two vacant industrial buildings on the property adjacent to Broadway. The parcel located at 1406 West Broadway is proposed for a future YMCA facility to be operated under agreement with the City of Anaheim. PROPOSAL: This City initiated request to reclassifythese parcelsto the Public Recreation zonewouldestablish zoning on the property that is consistent with the “Parks” General Plan land use designation for the property. No development is associated with this request. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00278 April 6, 2015 Page 2of 2 ANALYSIS: The proposed reclassification of these parcels to the Public Recreation Zone would implement the “Parks”General Plan land use designation on the parcels. The reclassification would be consistent with the existing public park (Betsy Ross Park) and the proposed future development of a YMCA facility on the undeveloped portion of the property. The reclassification of these properties to the PR zone would be consistent with, and assist with implementation of the following objectives, goals and policies of the Land Use and Green Elements of the General Plan: provide for an adequate supply of parks; offer a broad range of recreational opportunities; develop public/private partnerships; providerecreationaland program opportunities in close proximity to neighborhoods;and, continue to providenecessary community services and facilities. CONCLUSION: Staff believes the proposed zone change would implement the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approvalof this rezoning request. Prepared by,Submittedby, Vanessa NorwoodTed White Associate PlannerPrincipal Planner Attachments: 1.Draft Reclassification Resolution RS-3 APTS 8 DU RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE I RAILROAD RM-4 APTS 6-12 DU I ROSS PARK I I INDUSTRIAL ROSS PARK I USTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I I I INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL DUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I ROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I I DUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I I I INDUSTRIAL DUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet APN: Subject Property 036-050-04 036-050-24 036-050-26 036-050-29 036-050-30 DEV No. 2015-00030 1280 West Santa Ana St Ross Park 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet APN: Subject Property 036-050-04 036-050-24 036-050-26 036-050-29 036-050-30 DEV No. 2015-00030 1280 West Santa Ana St Ross Park [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00278AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT SAID RECLASSIFICATION, AND MAKINGCERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (DEV2015-00030) (1406, 1422 WEST BROADWAY, 318 SOUTH HESSEL STREET, 1280 WEST SANTA ANA STREET AND 301 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENUE) WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director under Section18.76.030 (Initiation) of Chapter 18.76 (Zoning Amendments) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), the Planning Director has initiated the reclassification of that certain real property located at 1406and1422 West Broadway, 318 South Hessel Street, 1280 West Santa Ana Street and 301 South Manchester Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), designated as Reclassification No. 2015- 00278; and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 8.8 acres in size and is currently developed with a City-owned park commonly known as Betsy Ross Park, two vacant industrial buildings and vacant land.The Property is located in the "I" Industrial Zone.The Anaheim General Plan designates a portion of the Property for "Parks" land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director requests to rezone or reclassify the Property from the "I" Industrial Zone to the "PR" Public Recreation 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. 2015-00278; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (“EIR 330”) certified in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update program, is all that is necessary in connectionwith the proposed reclassification of the Property and its approval and that none of the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelinescalling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement to EIR 330 have occurred; and -1-PC2015-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 6, 2015at 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 Projectand 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 thePropertyfrom the "I"IndustrialZone to the "PR" Public RecreationZone isconsistent with the Property’sexisting“Open Space-Parks" and "Parks" land use designationin the General Plan. 2.The proposed reclassification of the Propertyis necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the communityand is compatiblewiththesurrounding properties.Further, the proposed reclassification creates consistency between the Land Use Element of the General Plan andthe existing parkand open spaceland uses andthe likelihood that the balance of the improvements on the Property may be converted topublic recreation uses. 3.The proposed reclassification ofthePropertydoes properly relate to the zone and itspermitted uses locally established within and in closeproximity to the Propertyand 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 RESOLVEDthat,pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2015-00278to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Propertyinto the "PR"Public RecreationZone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolutionshall 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-PC2015-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 2015. 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 Commissionof the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commissionof the City of Anaheimheld on April6, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: NOES:COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6day of April, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -3-PC2015-*** -4-PC2015-*** City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:APRIL 6, 2015 SUBJECT:ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00125 – AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 (ZONING) TO ADD A DEFINITION OF “FIREWORKS”AND TO PERMIT THEIR SALE AS A TEMPORARY USE WITHIN THE ARENA DISTRICT OF THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE REQUEST: This is a City-initiated amendment to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to add a definition of “fireworks” and to permit the sale of fireworks as a temporary use within the Arena District of the Platinum TriangleMixed Use Overlay Zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion, determine that this actioniscategoricallyexempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 4,Minor Alterations to Land) and recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-00125. BACKGROUND: In a special June 3, 2014, municipal election, Anaheim voters voted to repeal Section 6.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC), which prohibits the retail sale, possession or use of safe and sane fireworks in the City except pursuant to a public display permit issued by the Fire Chief. The measure also authorized the City Council to regulate safe and sane fireworks. In response to the passage of Measure E, City staff has prepared a package of potential amendments to the AMC that would collectively allow the City to regulate the sale and use of fireworks. These Code amendments, which must be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to becoming effective, pertain to Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the AMC. The proposed amendments to Title 6 relate to the sale and use of fireworkswhile the amendments to Title 18 (Zoning Code) relate to thelocation of fireworkssales. While the regulation of the use and sale of fireworks are matters within the purview of the City Council, a change to the Zoning Code to define the location of where fireworks can be sold is subject to review by the Planning Commission and its recommendation to the City Council. Staffhas recommended one location within the City for the sale of safe and sane fireworks, namely property located within the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, which is the location of the Honda Center. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ZONING CODE AMENDMENTNO. 2015-00125 April 6, 2015 Page 2of 3 PROPOSAL: This proposal would amend the Zoning Code to define “Fireworks” as those “Safe and Sane Fireworks,” that are subject to the California State Fireworks Law and the California Health and Safety Code. This proposal would also amend the Zoning Code to permit the sales of safe and sane fireworks as a temporary use in the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone and clarify that temporary uses in the Platinum Triangle are exempt from the requirement to enter into a development agreement with the City. As proposed, the sale of fireworks at any other location in the City would not be allowed. ANALYSIS :In order to implement Measure E, the Zoning Code must be amended to allow the sale of safe and sane fireworks as a permitted temporary use and to identify the locations where the sales may occur. The approach of regulating fireworks sales as a permitted temporary use is in keeping with the manner in which the City regulates other seasonal salesactivities, including carnivals, Christmas tree lots and pumpkin patches, which are minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, and will not cause a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff believes that the initial year of fireworks sales should be viewed as a pilot program. As such, staff is recommending a conservative approach towards managing first year sales. The proposed Zoning Code amendment would authorize a single point of sale as opposed to allowing multiple saleslocationsin other parts or zones of the City.The single sale location recommended by staff is at the Honda Center. Establishing a single point of sale would allow Fire Department staff to efficiently and effectively monitor sales activity in a manageable environmentduring the initial year of sales.The Honda Center is ideal as a single point of sale becausethe site is designed to handle large crowds and associated vehicular traffic volumes. It is anticipated that fireworks sales would take place in a temporary on-site structure in the parking lot that would be sited in a manner that has minimal impacts to the venue’s operation and surrounding propertiesand in accordance with the State Fireworks Law. The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council. At that time, City staffwill concurrently recommend that the City Council consider a separateordinance that will, if adopted, amend Title 6 of the AMC to permit the sale and discharge of safe and sane fireworks within certain areas of the City. If the City Council adopts the recommended amendments to the AMC and fireworks sales and use are authorized to occur in the City,staff will subsequently analyze the results of the initial program and report back to the City Council with its findingsto enable the City Council to determine how and to what extend the sale and discharge of fireworks in the City should continue. The Honda Center property is located within the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. Developers of certain “primary” uses within the PTMU Overlay Zone, such as residential developments, are required to enter into a standardized development agreement with the City. However, certain types of projects, including remodels or minor building expansions, are exempt from the need to enter into such an agreement. The proposed Zoning Code amendment would clarify that temporary usesin the PTMU, including fireworks sales, would also be exempt from the need to enter into a development agreement. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTNO. 2015-00125 April 6, 2015 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed Code amendment would implement that portion of the voter- approved Measure E within the scope of the Planning Commission's purview by defining fireworks and regulating where fireworks may be sold. The Honda Center is an appropriate venue at which to allow a single point of fireworks sales given its design and location. Staff recommends approval of this Zoning Code Amendment. Prepared by, Submitted by, Scott Koehm Ted White Associate PlannerPrincipal Planner Attachments: 1.Draft Ordinance T (MHP) C-G SUNKIST GARDENS PHOENIX CLUB MOBILEHOME PARK C-G C-G T RANCHO DEL RIO PHOENIX OPEN (HORSES) CLUB SPACE T OPEN SPACE O-L (PTMU) Office OFFICES I INDUSTRIAL I - RELIGIOUS O-L (PTMU) PR (PTMU) USE Office Arena OFFICES PARKING LOT I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL PR (PTMU) Arena PR (PTMU) PARKING LOT Arena & PARKING LOT VOCATIONAL I SCHOOL INDUSTRIAL PR (PTMU) Arena HONDA CENTER PR (PTMU) Arena PR (PTMU) PARKING LOT Arena PARKING LOT O-H (PTMU) Office OFFICES C-G (PTMU) Katella Sub-Area C I (PTMU) RESTAURANT Katella Sub-Area D ARENA PLAZA KatellaSub-Area C O-L (PTMU) SP (PTMU) STADIUMTOWER Katella Sub-Area C ARTIC VACANT ARTIC OFFICEBLDG. 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet APN: 253-521-04 Subject Property 253-521-16 253-521-17 253-601-02 375-311-11 DEV No. 2015-00032 Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet APN: 253-521-04 Subject Property 253-521-16 253-521-17 253-601-02 375-311-11 DEV No. 2015-00032 Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone . [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE18(ZONING CODE) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF FIREWORKS AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF FIREWORKS AS A TEMPORARY USE WITHIN THE ARENA DISTRICT OF THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONEBASED UPON THE FINDING AND DETERMINATION THAT THE SALE OF FIREWORKS AS A TEMPORARY USE WITHIN THE ARENA DISTRICT OFTHE PTMU OVERLAY ZONEIS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OFTHE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. (ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-_____) WHEREAS, at the special municipal election held on June 3, 2014, the electorate of the City of Anaheim (the "City")voted to repeal Section 6.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits (bans) the retail sale, possession or use of safe and sane fireworks in the City except pursuant to a public display permit issued by the Fire Chief, and authorized the City Council to regulate safe and sane fireworks("Measure E"); and WHEREAS,pursuant tothe will of the electorate, as expressed in the passage of Measure E, and the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulationsfor the public peace, morals and welfare of the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, in order to implement that portion of Measure E that allows for the sale of safe and sane fireworks in the City, the Zoning Code must be amended to include the sale of safe and sane fireworks as a permitted use and to identify the zoning district or districts of the City within which the sale of safe and sane fireworks may occur; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Zoning Code to permit the sale of fireworks as a temporary use within the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for this ordinance; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds and determines that the sale of fireworks as a temporary use within the Arena District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and the adoption of this Ordinance (collectively, the "Proposed Project") is within that class of projects which consist of the minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15304(Minor Alterations to Land) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 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 City Council determines that this ordinance is a valid exercise of the local police power and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Table 20-C(TemporaryUsesand Structures:Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of Section 18.20.030(Mixed UseDistrict Uses) of Chapter 18.20(Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read in full asfollows: Table 20-C P=Permitted by Right TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: C=Conditional Use Permit PLATINUM TRIANGLE Required MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE* *Does not apply to the Office District; see N=Prohibited subsection 18.20.030.010 for Office District GF=Ground Floor Commercial uses. PTMUGFSpecial Provisions Subject to § 18.38.105 Contractor’s Office & StorageP (Contractor’s Office & Storage) Requires all applicable City Open-Air FestivalsP permits Subject to § 18.38.240(Special Special EventsP Events) Only permitted in the Arena Sale of Fireworks(applies only PDistrict and requires all to the Arena District) applicable City permits 2 SECTION 2. That Section 18.20.200 (Implementation) of Chapter 18.20(Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone)of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full asfollows: 18.20.200 IMPLEMENTATION. An approved final site plan and a development agreement between the property owner and the City of Anaheim are required for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone except as exempt under subsection 18.20.200.020.0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions). .010 Final Site Plan Review. A final site plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance withthe provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Said application shall include, but not be limited to, site plans, floor plans, elevations, landscape plans, sign plans and any other such information as determined bythe Planning Director. The approved final site plan shall be attached as an exhibit to the development agreement as required pursuant to subsection 18.20.200.020 (Development Agreement) and submitted to Planning Commission and City Council for review at a noticed public hearing. .0101 Master Site Plan. For projects over twelve (12) acres, an approved master site plan may be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and attached to the development agreement in lieu of an approved final site plan. If a master site plan is attached tothe development agreement, final site plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed hearing and conditions of approval may be imposed by the Planning Commission to ensure conformance with the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to issuance of building permits. A master site plan shall include any such information as determined by the Planning Director. .0102 Variances. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a variance shall have an application for said variance processed concurrently with the development agreement. 3 .0103 Conditional Use Permit. A final site plan or master site plan which includes a request for a conditional use permit shall have an application for said conditional use permit processed concurrently with the development agreement. .020 Development Agreement. A development agreement shall be processed for all development under the PTMU Overlay Zone per Resolution No. 82R-565 (Procedures Resolution) adopted by the City pursuant to Section 65865 of the Development Agreement Statute, except as otherwise exempt under subsection 18.20.200.020, paragraphs .0202 (Development Agreement Exemptions) and .0203 (Gateway District Sub-Area B). A final site plan or master site plan found to be in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan shall be attached as an exhibit to said development agreement. .0201 The Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement. For all development in the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts, the form of the development agreement shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004-179, as may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, except as otherwise indicated under subsection 18.20.200.020.0204 (Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan). .0202 Development Agreement Exemptions. Temporary Uses and Structures,as described in Table 20-C (Temporary Uses and Structures: Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of Section 18.20.030 (Mixed Use District Uses) of this Chapterare exempt from the development agreement requirements.In addition, followingFollowingconstruction and commencement of operation of a project that has been implemented pursuant to an approved development agreement, the following projects or improvements do not require a development agreement; however, plans for said projectsor improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval for consistency with all applicable provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan prior to the issuance of building, landscape or sign permits. .01 Interior building alterations, modifications or improvements which do not result in an increase in the gross square footage of the building. 4 .02 Minor building additions or improvements interior to or at the rear of a building or development complex which are not visible from the public right-of-way; do not exceed five percent (5%) of the building's gross square footage or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is lesser; are in substantial conformance with the building envelope; and are in conformance with the design plan and the zoning and development standards set forth in this chapter. .03 Exterior façade improvements which do not add to the gross square footage of a building or development complex, are not visible from the publicright-of-way, and are in substantial conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .04 Signage, including wall signs and on-site directional/informational signsand which signs are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .05 Landscape/hardscape improvements or modifications which are not in connection with building modifications and are in conformance with the PTMU Overlay Zone and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. .06 Conditionally permitted uses that will not increase the square footage or parking demand of the existing development as determined by the Planning Director and City Engineer. .0203 Gateway District Sub-Area B. Multiple-Family development in the Gateway District Sub-Area B, as authorized by approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04763, shall be exempt from the requirement for the property owner to enter into a development agreement with the City of Anaheim. .0204 Development Agreements in conjunction with a Master Site Plan. The form of a development agreement used in conjunction with a master site plan for all development within the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Orangewood and Office Districts shall be as approved per City Council Resolution No. 2004- 179, as it may be amended, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the exception that the term “final site plan” shall be replaced with “master site plan” and that time extensions may berequested provided that project milestones are met as indicated in the development agreement. 5 .030 Environmental Review. Development agreement review by the Planning Commission shall include an environmental determination for the proposed project as depicted in the final site plan or master site plan. SECTION 3. That Section 18.36.060 (Temporary Use Classes) of Chapter 18.36(Types of Uses) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full as follows: 18.36.060 TEMPORARY USE CLASSES. The following use classes are intended to describe those uses that are allowed for a limited and fixed period of time. .010 Carnivals & Circuses. This use class consists of the temporary operation of a commercial carnival or circus for entertainment, but not for promotional purposes for a business. .020 Christmas Tree & Pumpkin Sales. This use class consists of the sale of Christmas trees, Christmas tree stands, and Christmas wreaths on sale prior to December 25th of each year. The sale of trees and wreaths made of synthetic materials is not included. The use class also includes the sale of pumpkins prior to October 31st of each year. .030 Contractor's Office & Storage. This use class consists of temporary structures for the housing of tools and equipment or for supervisory offices in connection with major construction projects during the progress of the construction on such projects. .040Sale of Fireworks. This use class consists of the temporary sale of "fireworks", as that term is defined inSection 18.92.090 (“F” Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92of this Code. .040.050Open-Air Festivals. This use class consists of outdoor events oriented to tourists and/or visitors. Such events may include a public gathering, speech, concert, presentation or show. .050.060Real Estate Tract Office. This use class consists of one temporary real estate office and temporary real estate subdivision or tract sign located on any new subdivision located within the City. .060.070Real Estate Tract Signs. This use class consists of temporary signs advertising a contiguous grouping of residential lots or units for sale or lease. 6 .070.080Special Events. This use class consists of any event, promotion or sale sponsored by a business, shopping center or organization that is held outside the confines of the building, whether or not a business license is required, and that may include, or be limited to, the display of temporary signs, flags, banners, fixed balloons, rides, games, booths or similar amusement devices, whether or not a fee or admission is charged. SECTION 4. That Section 18.92.090 (“F” Words, Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 18.92 (Definitions) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full as follows: 18.92.090 "F" WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES. "Family.” An individual or a collective body of persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit, in a domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying a boardinghouse, lodging house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or any residential or group care facility requiring a conditional usepermit. "Family Day Care.” Regularly provided care, protection and supervision of fourteen (14) or fewer children, in the provider's own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians of such children are away. The term "Provider," as used herein, means a person who operates a “Family Day Care” home and is licensed or registered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.6 of Division 2 (commencing with Section 1597.30) of the California Health and Safety Code. "Family Day Care Home, Large.” A home, located in a single-family dwelling in a residential zone, which provides family day care to nine (9) to fourteen (14) children, including children who reside at the home, as defined in regulations of the California Department ofSocial Services, and meeting the criteria and standards set forth in Section 18.38.140(Large Family Day Care Homes) of Chapter 18.38(Supplemental Use Regulations). "Family Day Care Home, Small.” A home, located in a single-family dwelling in a residential zone, which provides family day care to eight (8) or fewer children, including children who reside at the home, as defined in regulations of the California Department of Social Services. "Fences, Walls, Hedges and Berms.” A continuous barrier (including gates) which separates, screens, encloses or marks a boundary of a property or development. The term "Continuous Barrier," as used herein, includes: any masonry or rock 7 wall; any wood, iron, steel, plastic, glass, fiberglass, chainlink, simulated wood or simulated metal fence; any shrubbery, landscaping and/or trees that have grown together such that they completely separate, screen or enclose a property or development; any landscaped earthen berm; and any natural or fabricated barrier which serves as a continuous screen to prevent intrusion, or to mark a boundary within or around a property. “Figure Model.” Any person, male or female, either nude or semi-nude, who is to be either viewed, photographed, sculptured, sketched, painted, danced with, or subject to lawful tactile conduct. “Figure Model Studio.” Any premises where there is conducted the business of furnishing, providing, or procuring male or female persons in the nude or semi- nude to be either viewed, photographed, sculptured, sketched, painted, danced with, or subject to lawful tactile conduct by persons who pay a fee or other consideration, compensation, or gratuity for any of those services. "Fireworks". Those fireworks that are defined and classified as Safe and Sane Fireworks(also known as “state-approved fireworks”) in the California State FireworksLaw (Sections 12500 et seq.of theCalifornia HealthandSafety Codeand the relevant sections ofChapter 6, Title 19, California Codeof Regulations), subject to regulation by City Council. "Floodplain.” Area susceptible to flooding, defined as the “regulatory floodway” and designated as a “special flood hazard area” (subject to a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year) on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or as designated by the City Engineer as being equivalent to a regulatory floodway or special flood hazard area. "Floor Area, Gross.” The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of a building, measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two (2) buildings, but not including underground parking, uncovered steps or exterior balconies. "Floor Area, Livable.” The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of an individual residential dwelling unit, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two (2) dwelling units, but not including floorsthat are not capable of containing a habitable room or areas used, or designed to be used for, enclosed parking. "Floor Area Ratio.” The gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot, excluding parking structures, but including covered storage areas, divided by the total lot area. “Fortunetelling.” A business involving fortunetelling. The term “fortunetelling” shall mean the telling of fortunes, forecasting of futures, or furnishing any 8 information not otherwise obtainable by the ordinary processes of knowledge, by means of any occult or psychic power, faculty or force, clairvoyance, clairaudience, cartomancy, phrenology, spirits, mediumship, seership, prophecy, augury, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, mindreading, telepathy, or other similar practice, craft, art, science, cards, talisman, charm, potion, magnetism, magnetized article or substance, crystal gazing, or magic of any kind or nature, or engaging in, practicing or carrying on any art, profession or business, the advertisement and practice of which is regulated by this chapter. . SECTION 5.SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all otherportions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid.If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6.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. SECTION 7.EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage. /// /// /// /// /// THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2015, and thereafter 9 passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________,2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ANAHEIM By: __________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: ______________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 107973-v3/TJR 10 City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net