Document Anaheim_doc_09a3df6fb1

FINAL THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION PROJECT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED] RESPONSE TO COMMENTS prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services OCTOBER 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL THE REVISED PLATINUM TRIANGLE EXPANSION PROJECT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 SCH #[PHONE REDACTED] RESPONSE TO COMMENTS prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] E-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services COA-51.0E OCTOBER 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page i W SECTION 1. 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2. SUMMARY OF GENERAL RESPONSES 3. RESPONSE TO 4. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 DSEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN APPENDIX A. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INFORMATION B. REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY C. SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS D. WATER SUPPLY MEMO ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents The Planning Center October 2010 Page ii This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of the following: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) No. 339 for The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project during the public review period, which commenced on August 13, 2010 and closed on September 27, 2010. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. These responses to comments, together with the DSEIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City of Anaheim at the time of certification, will constitute the FEIR, in accordance with the requirements as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. 1.1.1.1 Format of the FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of this comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A1 through A10 for letters received from agencies; I1 through I5 for interested parties). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses to the letter with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DSEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DSEIR for public review. The responses to comments contained in this package contain material and revisions which will be added or made to the text of the FSEIR. City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DSEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Introduction The Planning Center October 2010 Page 1-2 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be, “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.” Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by those submitting comments. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FSEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 2-1 2. Summary of General Responses This section summarizes those issues that were raised by multiple commentors. The issue area is followed by a comprehensive response. 2.1 PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The 2006-2014 Housing Element of the City's General Plan provides a long-term blueprint for housing in the context of local and regional trends and housing production goals. It addresses new production targets set by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to encourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide its fair share of very low, low, moderate, and upper income housing needed during 2006-2014. These numerical housing goals are known as Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets. State law requires that cities demonstrate they have adequate sites to meet their RHNA allocations. An analysis of land resources must be completed that takes into consideration zoning, development standards, and the availability of public services and facilities to accommodate a variety of housing types and incomes. The City must demonstrate that it has capacity or adequate sites to accommodate projected need for housing. The evaluation of adequate sites represents planning goals, and not a goal for actual production of housing within a planning period. This analysis is included in Appendix B of the City of Anaheim 2006-2014 Housing Element, which is available on-line at www.anaheim.net/generalplan and hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.. The 2006-2014 Housing Element did not assume that sites within the Platinum Triangle were necessary to meet its RHNA target for lower income housing sites. As indicated in the HCD’s letter to the City dated February 5, 2009, the HCD would not accept the inclusion of proposed sites within the Platinum Triangle because density on these sites was entitled through approved development agreements, even though these development agreements do not set dwelling unit rent or sale price. However, even without the proposed sites within the Platinum Triangle, the City met the HCD’s criteria for meeting the City’s RHNA target and the HCD found the City's 2006-2014 Housing Element to be in compliance with State law. The HCD’s approval letter is included in Appendix K of the Draft SEIR. The Proposed Project allows the allocation of 8,643 dwelling units on sites that are not currently entitled by development agreements, as indicated on the attached exhibit “PTMU Overlay Zone: Residential Development.” Any of these sites could be developed for affordable housing. Furthermore, any of the property owners with an approved development agreement could develop their sites with affordable housing since the Standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement does not set a required rent or sales price. In addition to providing adequate sites for affordable housing, the City has a clearly demonstrated record of success in providing financial assistance, incentives, and programs to encourage and assist in the development of housing for lower and moderate income households. As indicated in Appendix C of the Housing Element, during the 1998-2005 Planning Period, the City exceeded its overall new construction goal of 2,858 dwelling units by 1,145 units for a total of 4,003 units. In the very-low and low income categories, the City exceeded its goal of 1,086 dwelling units with the construction of 1,478 units. Most notably, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency has exceeded its inclusionary housing obligation by 1,268 units and continues to assist in the development of affordable housing. Anaheim’s successful implementation of its housing programs above and beyond stated objectives is attributed to proactive efforts and citywide commitment to providing the most extensive resources and incentive programs to private and non-profit developers. Although the City’s proposed sites to meet its RHNA target for lower income households did not include any of the properties within the Platinum Triangle, this does not preclude this type of housing from being developed within the Platinum Triangle. The 2006-2014 Housing Element’s Housing Production Strategy 1I: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan clearly indicates that developers within Platinum Triangle have the same opportunity to seek and utilize Anaheim’s numerous incentive programs for developing affordable housing as they do throughout the rest of the City, including ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. General Response The Planning Center October 2010 Page 2-2 participation by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority. These incentive programs include, but are not limited to, Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds; HOME program funds; the Density Bonus and Senior Citizens’ Apartment Housing ordinances; developer incentives, including land write-downs and predevelopment loans/grants; down payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City development fees; exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; site improvements; bond financing and, subsidies for tax credit projects. In addition, Housing Production Strategy 1D: Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds at 30% of Property Tax increment describes how the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency’s Housing Set-Aside Fund provides the primary source for most of the affordable housing related activities in the City. Since the entire Stadium District of the PTMU Overlay Zone and portions of the Platinum Triangle adjacent to the I- 5 freeway are located within the Redevelopment Agency’s Merged Project Area, development of the Proposed Project will generate additional redevelopment funds which can be used by the City in the future to develop affordable housing opportunities. These additional tax increment funds are used for a variety of projects, programs and activities, including land acquisition, new affordable housing construction, substantial rehabilitation, and first-time homebuyer assistance. Moreover, pursuant to State Redevelopment Law (see, e.g., Health & Safety Code section 33413(b)(2)(i)), all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units within the merged project area shall be available to persons and families of low or moderate income. Thus, by operation of State law, 15% of any new housing developed within geographical portions of the Project Area that are also located within the Merged Project Area will be required to be affordable to families of low and moderate income. Moreover, 40% of the units produced pursuant to the 15% mandate must be available to families of very low income. Moreover, within the Merged Project Area, the City was required to produce 314 units affordable for low and moderate income families, but to date 1,809 units available for low and moderate income families have been produced. Thus, the City/Agency has had a tremendously successful track record in encouraging the production of affordable housing. Finally, requiring property owners in all circumstances (even, for example, for those areas outside of the Merged Project Area), to develop all or a percentage of dwelling units as affordable would contradict Planning Principle 2.1.2 of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan which is to “Stimulate Market- Driven Development.” As indicated in the August 26, 2009 letter from the HCD to the Building industry Association, “…some inclusionary programs may have the potential to negatively impact the overall development of housing. As a result, local governments must analyze mandatory inclusionary policies as potential governmental constraints on housing production when adopting or updating their housing elements, in the same way that other land use regulations must be evaluated as potential constraints.” This constraint to development is further analyzed in the paper “Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?” which concludes that “Inclusionary zoning ordinances will continue to make housing less affordable by restricting the supply of new homes. If more affordable housing is the goal, governments should pursue policies that encourage the production of new housing.” Please refer to Appendix A of this FSEIR for information related to the provision of affordable housing. These documents cited above are incorporated by reference. Thus, while the City as a matter of public policy disagrees with the requests made by various commentators that the City adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that mandates the production of affordable housing, the City must comply with State RHNA and RDA law, and the City (ii) has a tremendous track record in terms of comply with State law related to affordable housing laws as evidenced by HCD’s certification of the City’s Housing Element, and as evidenced by the City’s effective production of affordable housing through market mechanisms throughout the City. 2.1.1 Housing Element Consistency The following are the policy considerations are included in the City of Anaheim 2006-2014 Housing Element: Policy Consideration 1.0: Growth Needs The City of Anaheim’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation for the 2006-2014 Housing Element is 9,498 units. In comparison to other cities in Orange County, Anaheim’s allocation represents a large share of the County’s overall need. Limited land resources, construction costs and other funding/financing considerations significantly influence the ability of the private market to provide a variety of housing choices to meet the needs for a variety of income levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. General Response SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 2-3 Policy Consideration 2.0: Utilization of Existing Resources for Housing The available funding and staffing to address projected housing need is limited. Therefore, the City must anticipate and pursue comprehensive and strategic utilization of funding sources, prioritize programs and maximize coordinated participation between public, private and non-profit entities. Policy Consideration 3.0: Community Design and Sustainability Anaheim’s community members and stakeholder groups have identified the maintenance and enhancement of quality of life as an important factor to address when planning for the City’s future housing needs. The preservation and enhancement of that quality of life can be accomplished through community design and sustainability concepts that consider the function and livability of Anaheim’s existing and planned neighborhoods and can provide financial benefits, as well. Establishment of a holistic approach to community design and sustainability can have a positive effect on the quality of life in Anaheim. Policy Consideration 4.0: Affordable Housing Opportunities for Anaheim’s Residents Programs providing fair housing counseling, education and enforcement have been identified as means to provide affordable housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents. The City of Anaheim should strategically address the specific needs of Anaheim residents through utilization of existing resources in combination with County, State, Federal private and non-profit resources. Specifically, consideration of homelessness, housing access, affordability issues and rental housing opportunities can be best addressed at the local level through target policies and programs sponsored and/or administered by the City. Policy Consideration 5.0: Community Education and Outreach Outreach to all segments of the community and education on housing and housing related topics is important to the success of the City’s housing projects and programs. Through education and outreach, especially thorough non-traditional means, the City can ensure that information is available for interested community members and maximize participation in housing programs. Policy Consideration 6.0: Housing Availability and Affordability The demand for housing in Anaheim remains high due to employment opportunities, its strategic location and local amenities. Housing costs in Anaheim and the surrounding region continue to remain higher than what is affordable for many households, especially the lower-income segments of the population. Additionally, the need for housing suitable for special needs groups is not always fulfilled by the housing options currently available. Providing policies and programs to increase available housing for all segments of the population will help ensure that current residents and those who work in Anaheim have the opportunity to remain in the City. Policy Consideration 7.0: Infill and Redevelopment Anaheim is essentially “built-out.” There are very few areas of undeveloped land remaining in the City. The City must rely on infill and redevelopment opportunities to accommodate growth. Policies should allow and encourage creative solutions to maximize the potential in redeveloping areas of Anaheim. To address the Policy Considerations identified above, the City has established Guiding Principles that provide the primary policy direction to address its identified needs. The table below identifies the Guiding Principles and analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with these principles. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. General Response The Planning Center October 2010 Page 2-4 Guiding Principles Proposed Project Guiding Principle A: The provision of a high quality, well maintained housing stock is a primary contributor to quality of life in Anaheim. The proposed project will increase the permitted amount of housing within the Platinum Triangle. Development within this area is guided by the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and regulated by the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, which have detailed guidelines and standard intended to provide a high quality, well maintained housing stock. Guiding Principle B: The availability of a range of housing choices for a variety of incomes in Anaheim contributes to a balanced community and community investment. The proposed project provides the opportunity to increase the permitted amount of multi-family residential development within the City and provide housing for a variety of incomes. In 2007, the distribution of housing type amongst the 101,510 housing units within the City was 43% single family detached, 8.9% single-family attached, 43.7% multi-family, and 4.3% mobile homes. Build out of the proposed project would increase the percentage of multi-family units to 52.5% of the housing stock. Developers within Platinum Triangle have the same opportunity to seek and utilize Anaheim’s numerous incentive programs for developing affordable housing as they do throughout the rest of the City; and, therefore the proposed project does not limit the ability to provide housing for a variety of income levels. Guiding Principle C: Persons with special housing needs should have access to a variety of housing choices that are integrated within the community. The proposed project will increase the supply of housing within the City and as a result increase the housing choices for persons with special needs. Guiding Principle D: Sustainable design and the efficient utilization of resources create more livable neighborhoods and can have both environmental and financial benefits. The proposed project encourages sustainable design and the efficient utilization of resources. For example, the proposed project will require development to exceed Title 24 energy standards by a minimum of 10%. Continued implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan will create more livable neighborhoods that will have both environmental and financial benefits. Guiding Principle E: Community education and outreach is of fundamental importance to establishing a well-informed, educated community that can participate directly in the provision, conservation and preservation of housing in Anaheim. The Notice of Preparation for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project was posted on December 11, 2008, advertised in the Orange County Register and mailed to agencies and other interested parties. A public scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2009. Comments received during the public review period are summarized in Table 2-1 of DSEIR No. 339 and contained in Appendix B of the DSEIR. A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was released on August 13, 2010 and the document was made available at City Hall, Sunkist Branch Library, and Anaheim Central Library and on the internet for a 45-day public review period, which ended on September 27, 2010. During the public review period, the City received comments from sixteen agencies and interested parties. These comments and associated responses are documented in the Final EIR, which will be released to the public at least ten days prior to the City Council’s review of the EIR. Public Hearings for the proposed project were held before the Planning Commission on October 11, 2010 and will be held before the City Council on October 26, 2010. 2.2 LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELATIVE TO EMPLOYMENT The Platinum Triangle, which is located within the 92805 and 92806 zip codes, and the Anaheim Resort are home to some of the City’s major employment centers. Therefore, a majority of the City’s affordable housing units, which are primarily located within the 92805 zip code, are in close proximity to these employment centers. As shown, on the exhibit entitled “Affordable Housing Projects” located in Appendix A of this FSEIR, the City’s affordable units are concentrated near OCTA bus stops and routes, near major transportation facilities including the I-5 freeway, and near major employment centers including the Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort. A substantial number of the City’s affordable housing projects are located in the City’s downtown area which is only 2.5 miles from the Platinum Triangle and less than one mile from the Anaheim Resort. According to SCAG, the average commute ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. General Response SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 2-5 length in southern California is 19.2 miles.1 As a result, by siting a large portion of the City’s affordable housing projects in close proximity to transit and employment centers, the number of commute trips and commute trip can be significantly reduced thereby reducing associated traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts. In addition, there is no prohibition on the development of Affordable Housing within the Platinum Triangle. Thus, the proposed project is entirely consistent with the Statewide prerogatives (such as SB 375) with respect to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trip 2.3 LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELATIVE TO INCOME The Platinum Triangle is located in the southern portions of the 92805 and 92806 zip codes. The average income in the 92805 zip code is $60,3862. The average income in the 92806 zip code is $62,322. These salaries fall in the Moderate Income range for one and two person households. To date, in excess of 8,300 housing units have been approved within The Platinum Triangle. A significant portion of these units are anticipated to meet the affordability requirements for moderate income families. In addition, although the City’s proposed sites to meet its RHNA target for lower income households did not include any of the properties within the Platinum Triangle, this does not preclude this type of housing from being developed within the Platinum Triangle. Developers within Platinum Triangle have the same opportunity to seek and utilize Anaheim’s numerous incentive programs for developing affordable housing as they do throughout the rest of the City, As shown, on the exhibit entitled “Affordable Housing Projects” located in Appendix A of this FSEIR, nearly all of the City’s affordable housing projects are located within five miles of the City’s major employment centers including the Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort. A substantial number of the City’s affordable housing projects are located in the City’s downtown area which is only 2.5 miles from the Platinum Triangle and less than one mile from the Anaheim Resort. For the reasons stated herein, the City of Anaheim feels that the proposed project provides an appropriate balance of jobs and housing at all income levels. Thus, workers at the stated income levels have housing opportunities well within the area adjacent to the project site. 1 Southern California Association of Governments, State of the Commute Report, December 2006. 2 EMSI Complete Employment - 3rd Quarter 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. General Response The Planning Center October 2010 Page 2-6 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-1 3. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Anaheim) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DSEIR and the Lead Agency’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in bold and double underline for additions and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Recirculated DSEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies A1 City of Cypress August 17, 2010 3-3 A2 Department of Toxic Substances Control September 7, 2010 3-7 A3 Anaheim City School District September 24, 2010 3-11 A4 Orange County Transportation Authority September 24, 2010 3-15 A5 California Department of Transportation September 27, 2010 3-19 A6 City of Orange September 27, 2010 3-23 A7 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission September 27, 2010 3-37 A8 Orange County Sanitation District September 27, 2010 3-41 A9 Orange County Transportation Authority September 27, 2010 3-47 A10 Orange County Public Works September 29, 2010 3-51 Interested Parties I1 Dennis T. Davis September 17, 2010 3-55 I2 Amy Davis September 18, 2010 3-61 I3 Amy Davis September 19, 2010 3-69 I4 Mueller September 23, 2010 3-75 I5 Amy Davis September 24, 2010 3-79 I6 Anaheim Neighborhood Association September 27, 2010 3-83 I7 The Kennedy Commission September 27, 2010 3-89 I8 Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development No date provided 3-99 I9 Public Law Center , September 27, 2010 3-105 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-3 LETTER A1 – City of Cypress (Page 1 of 1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-5 A1. Response to Comments from Kori Nevárez, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, City of Cypress, dated August 17, 2010. A1-1 The City of Cypress indicated that they have no comments or concerns regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-6 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-7 LETTER A2 – Department of Toxic Substances Control (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-8 LETTER A2 – Department of Toxic Substances Control (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-9 A2. Response to Comments from Al Shami, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated September 7, 2010. A2-1 The Department of Toxic Substances Control indicated that they have no comments on the DSEIR. No response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-10 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-11 LETTER A3 – Anaheim City School District (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-12 Letter A3 – Anaheim City School District (Page 2 of 1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-13 A3. Response to Comments from Tom Rizzuti, Director, Facilities and Planning, Anaheim City School District, dated September 24, 2010. A3-1 Figure 5.7-2, ACSD School Locations, has been updated per your request and included in Section 3.0 of this FSEIR. A3-2 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. No response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-14 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-15 LETTER A4 – Orange County Transportation Authority (Page 1 of 1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-16 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-17 A4. Response to Comments from Charles Larwood, Manager, Transportation Planning, Orange County Transportation Authority, Dated September 24, 2010. A4-1 Per your request, Page 5.9-6 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Metrolink and Amtrak have daily service at the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station, located within the Stadium District. This station is proposed to be relocated to the ARTIC District as part of the ARTIC project. Metrolink service is anticipated to expand to more frequent headways throughout the day in the coming years under the Metrolink Service Expansion Program. In addition, the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) has been approved on State College Boulevard with a stop at ARTIC. The State College Boulevard line will be one of the first three BRT lines deployed by OCTA. A systemwide transit study is currently underway that will review service options for potential implementation in the future. This study is expected to conclude in June 2011. and is tentatively scheduled for implementation in late 2010. Additional routes have been proposed for future approval, including a line on Katella Avenue. In addition to these transit services, the Platinum Triangle is also served by Anaheim Resort Transit and OCTA local bus lines. The transit reduction methodology applied to the Proposed Project is outlined in Appendix B of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. A4-2 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. A4-3 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 9-17 in the FSEIR (9-19 in the DSEIR) which requires OCTA approval for bus turnouts and stops. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-18 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-19 LETTER A5 – State of California Department of Transportation (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-20 LETTER A5 – State of California Department of Transportation (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-21 A5. Response to Comments from Christopher Herre, Branch Chief, Local Development/Intergovernmental Review, State of California Department of Transportation, Dated September 27, 2010. A5-1 Comment noted. No response is necessary. A5-2 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project. The City agrees that the proposed Project will have the effect of reducing vehicle miles traveled and lessen the reliance on the single occupancy vehicle as the only source of transportation. A5-3 Comment noted. Please refer to Appendix B of this FSEIR which includes the updated traffic study and Appendix C which includes a supplemental traffic analysis to assist Caltrans in the long-term planning of regional transportation facilities discussed at our meeting on September 22, 2010. A5-4 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. The City appreciates the time Department staff spent working and collaborating with the City’s transportation planners and traffic consultants. The City is pleased to have worked with the Department over the past few months to regarding the traffic impact analysis contained within the EIR. The City is pleased that the Department concurs with the methodologies, analysis, conclusions and mitigation measures employed and set forth in the traffic impact section of the EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-22 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-23 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 1 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-24 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 2 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-25 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 3 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-26 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 4 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-27 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 5 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-28 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 6 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-29 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 7 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-30 LETTER A6 – City of Orange (Page 8 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-31 A6. Response to Comments from Alice Angus, Community Development Director, City of Orange, Dated September 27, 2010. A6-1 Per your request, Table 5.9-8 of the DSEIR has been updated as follows: A-15** Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 32,740 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-61** Katella Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 29,610 6D 56,300 0.53 A A6-2 As requested by the City of Orange in its comments on the NOP, the City of Orange General Plan was incorporated in the “No Project” scenario. In other words, the “no- project” scenario includes the assumption that the City of Orange General Plan will be built out as envisioned by the Orange General Plan. For the purposes of the traffic analysis, the Orange Traffic Analysis Model (OTAM) was incorporated in its entirety into the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM). ATAM is the source document for this analysis. This means that all of the Orange General Plan updates citywide were incorporated into ATAM, including land use changes, street classification changes, and the addition of collector streets that do not exist in OCTA’s traffic model. As described on Page 4-11 of the DSEIR, the buildout assumptions assumed for the City of Orange General Plan land use policy would result in an increase of approximately 23,478 dwelling units and 35.7 million square feet of nonresidential building floor area over existing conditions. A net population increase of 57,844 persons is also anticipated at build-out. The high speed rail projects are incorporated into ATAM as well. The DSEIR identifies the Institutional land use square footage to be 1,500,000 square feet. This number is based on the trip requirements estimated by studies performed by the high speed rail agencies. The institutional square footage is used in the model to reflect an equivalent number of trips to be generated by the high speed rail and other transit services at ARTIC. A6-3 With respect to non-residential trip rates, the ATAM was used to develop the estimated trip rates set forth in the EIR ATAM is a socioeconomic data based traffic model which projects likely trip generation based on a variety of growth factors, including economic growth rates and planned land uses. Thus, an increase in commercial land uses increases trip rates based on an increase in employment numbers. The ATAM model is similar to the OTAM model used by the City of Orange in its general plan EIR. With respect to dwelling units, trip rates are assigned based on the number of proposed dwelling units and residential based trips are calculated based on the trip purpose for each dwelling unit. As a result, there is no land use trip rate calculated based purely on land use categories only. Rather, the comprehensive ATAM model (which has been used for decades in Anaheim) was used to generate likely trip rates based on the land uses proposed by the proposed Project. Again, the use of models such as ATAM and OTAM is consistent with programmatic traffic impact analyses prepared throughout the County and the City’s TIA was approved by the California Department of Transportation. Again, the methodology employed by the City here in this EIR is consistent with the Trip Generation analysis used by the City of Orange in its 2005 Orange Traffic Analysis Model Update Addendum. Also see section 2.2 of the traffic study for further details in regards to internal capture and transit reductions. Detailed internal capture worksheets are located in Appendix B of the traffic study. A6-4 Comment noted. The analysis in the TIA uses the information made available at the time of the Notice of Preparation. The intersection configurations were confirmed with City of Orange staff at the time of the NOP so that ATAM could be properly coded. The identified lane configuration changes would not affect the proposed mitigation set forth in the TIA. As future development occurs, such development will be required to conduct its own traffic impact analysis and such analyses can determine if the proposed mitigation measures set forth in the TIA are still necessary in the future. If it is determined that the identified mitigation measures are not ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-32 necessary in light of the new proposed lane configuration identified by the commentator, then the identified mitigation measure can be modified at that time. In any event, the commentator does not identify any new impacts. A6-5 Per your request, Table 5.9-19 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.69 B 0.89 D A6-6 Per your request, Table 5.9-20 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 51,570 6D 59,115 0.87 D Per your request, Page 5.9-70 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 33) Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-62) 33) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-65) 34) Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A-72) 35) Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street/(A-74) 36) Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street/(A-77) 37) Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway/(A-78) 38) Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road/(A-81) 39) Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue /(A-82) 40) State College Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue/(A-87) 41) Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-91) With this requested change, Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street is no longer forecasted to be deficient. As a result, all discussions regarding mitigation for this segment have been removed. Per your request, Table 5.9-23 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.92 E No mitigation recommended Per your request, Page 5.9-70 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Table 5.9-24 compares the deficient arterial segments in the City of Orange under existing, No Project, and With Project conditions. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (A-15, referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue (A-62) identified in Table 5.9-24 were was identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these this segments through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. Therefore, no specific road improvements are proposed for these two arterial segments. Per your request, Table 5.9-24 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street/Batavia Street 30,280 0.54 A 47,690 0.85 D 51,570 0.92 E Yes Modifications to Page 5.9-71 are highlighted in the next response ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-33 Table 5.9-37 has been modified to remove the segment as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Street) Orange Project No mitigation Override Page 5.9-126 has been modified as follows: 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street— No mitigation measures are recommended. 2019) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street—Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial. Pages 6-3 and 6-4 of the traffic study have been modified as follows: The following six five arterial segments within the City of Orange are identified as deficient and are located within corridors that are built out and have right-of-way constraints include existing businesses, extensive landscaping, and in the case of Struck Avenue, several homes. The City of Orange has no plans to widen the identified segments within the foreseeable future but should the City of Orange decide to implement improvements along these corridors, the City of Anaheim will need to contribute a fair-share. The City of Anaheim will continue to work with the City of Orange to develop the most appropriate strategy toward improving the locations impacted by the Proposed Project. 15) Arterial Segment A-15: Ball Road from SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 16) Arterial Segment A-27: Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 17) Arterial Segment A-28: Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street 18) Arterial Segment A-32: Eckhoff Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 2019) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street Per your request, the traffic study has been revised and included as Appendix B of this FSEIR A6-7 Per your request, Page 5.9-71 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: For arterial segment improvements within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 5.9-25 would require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue identified in Table 5.9-25 were was identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these this segment through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. For the segment of Collins Avenue between Batavia Street and Glassell Street, improvements to a four-lane divided facility were recommended. The segments of Eckhoff Street and Struck Avenue were not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia was also not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-34 A6-8 Per your request, Table 5.9-25 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Table 5.9-25 Potential Arterial Segment Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities ID Arterial From To With Project ADT V-C Daily LOS Proposed Mitigation Strategy Mit V/C Mit LOS Fair- Share A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 60,250 1.07 F No mitigation recommended* 4.2% A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 23,650 0.99 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.63 B 3.0% A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 21,820 0.91 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.58 A 6.5% A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 27,760 1.16 F Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.74 C 2.5% A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 51,570 0.92 E No mitigation recommended* 18.2% A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 15,500 1.29 F Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial 0.65 B 15.9% * For the abovementioned segments, Orange determined that intersection improvements along Katella and Taft Avenue (proposed in the General Plan EIR as mitigation) would likely improve the arterial segment LOS to acceptable levels. As such, the City proposed monitoring of the arterial segments to ensure that the intersection improvements result in the expected arterial LOS improvement. If widening were needed in the future (as determined by ongoing monitoring efforts) projects would need to be undertaken as a coordinated effort between Anaheim and Orange, and would be subject to fair share contributions from the Platinum Triangle project. A6-9 The analysis uses the information made available at the time of the Notice of Preparation. The intersection configurations were confirmed with City of Orange staff at the time of the NOP so that ATAM could be properly coded. The fourth leg intersection changes referenced by the commentator would not affect the proposed mitigation. Future traffic impact analyses required by future development will determine if the proposed mitigation measures are still necessary. If the fourth leg currently under construction renders the mitigation measures identified in the TIA unnecessary, then such future traffic impact analyses will identify this. A6-10 The passage of Measure M in 1990 requires all jurisdictions to develop a locally collected and administered traffic mitigation fee. The fee program should cover the improvements required in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which is the state required nexus for the development of these fees. If the City of Orange’s traffic mitigation fee program is consistent with AB 1600 requirements, the traffic fee program will provide sufficient funding to cover all street improvements required in the City’s Circulation Element, as this is the nexus for the development of a traffic impact fee. Since these locally collected fees should be sufficient for the implementation of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, there is no nexus for projects outside of the City of Orange to contribute to Orange’s traffic impact fee program. In addition, the traffic fees collected by the City of Orange would be used citywide, where as the influence area of the Platinum Triangle covers parts of the western portions of the City of Orange which are mostly built out. This means that fees that would be paid by City of Anaheim developments could be used to fund infrastructure improvements that will carry no Platinum Triangle related traffic. There is no nexus for the Platinum Triangle to contribute any fees to street improvements which carry no Platinum Triangle traffic. Therefore, we respectfully decline this request. However, it should be noted that the Platinum Triangle EIR includes a mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure 9-8 that requires development projects located within the City of Anaheim to contribute fair share funding to mitigate impacts to City of Orange intersection caused by the development. The fair share funding identifies improvements above and beyond what the City or Orange has identified in its circulation element of its General Plan. It should be noted that Mitigation Measure 9-8 (requiring Anaheim development to contribute fair share funding for improvements in another jurisdiction) is the only cross-jurisdictional mitigation measure the City is aware of; no other City in Orange County provides ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-35 such cross-jurisdictional mitigation. Regardless of MM 9-8, the City will still be required to override impacts occurring in the City of Orange due to the fact that the City cannot assure that improvements are constructed in the City of Orange due to the fact that the City does not have control over City of Orange intersections and arterials. A6-11 The CFD covers the fair share for all intersection improvements required in the City of Orange, but does not currently cover arterial street improvements within the City of Orange. Therefore, the City of Anaheim will create a new fee program or update an existing fee program consistent with Mitigation Measure 9-13 to collect fees to pay for the projects fair share costs to implement improvements on arterial streets within the City of Orange. All fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance, and distributed to the City of Orange as outlined in the Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA) previously executed with the City of Orange. Mitigation measure 9-6 specifically details the traffic impact study requirements for developments which generate at least 100 peak hour trips, and does not have any direct implication with fee collection or the CFD. Mitigation measure 9-8 indicates how traffic impacts identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6 will be handled with the City of Orange, consistent with the JCFA. In order to ensure that the CFD is updated to include City of Orange arterial segments, Mitigation Measure 9-13 shall be amended as follows: 9-13 Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, and prior to the approval of the first Development Agreement, if the costs of the identified improvements in this traffic study cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing Community Facilities District (CFD), an update to the CFD or an update to of the existing City’s traffic impact fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. Any updated CFD or City traffic fee program shall include the costs of implementing identified intersection and/or arterial improvements in the City of Orange. A6-12 As is clearly indicated in mitigation measures 9-12 and 9-13, at issuance of first building permit, all projects regardless of size (meaning regardless of whether such projects generate 100 peak hour trips or not) will pay all required fees. A certain percentage of all fees collected will be set aside in separate accounts for necessary City of Orange and Caltrans improvements. Projects generating more than 100 trips will also be required to prepare individualized traffic analyses to identify when improvements are necessary to be constructed to maintain satisfactory levels of service. Mitigation measure 9-8 states that the City of Anaheim will contribute its fair share cost towards improvements in the City of Orange, as required by CEQA. There is no nexus within CEQA to do additional funding or additional studies to determine how the City of Orange will cover any remaining costs that go beyond the impacts of City of Anaheim development. The DSEIR contains a statement of overriding considerations given that since the City of Anaheim has no jurisdiction to implement improvements on facilities outside its jurisdiction (City of Orange or Caltrans), Anaheim cannot guarantee that these improvements will be constructed, and therefore the impacts would remain significant. With respect to any funding shortfalls, MM 9-8 envisions that the City and the City of Orange will enter into a new mitigation agreement whereby the City of Orange agrees to identify necessary funding from City of Orange development. A6-13 The TIA complies with the guidelines established by City of Orange staff, and has incorporated everything asked to include in the study to date. This includes the analysis of several intersections which do not meet the mutually agreed upon minimum requirements for analysis. The cities of Anaheim and Orange have already executed a JCFA the purpose of which was to work to establish a joint mitigation program for each City of Orange impacted intersection and arterial street. Simply paying money without a mitigation program in place is not considered mitigation. Mitigation measure 9-8 states that the fees will be distributed in a mutually agreeable fashion once a mitigation program is in place. Until such time, the City of Anaheim ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-36 will hold the fees in trust in a dedicated account specifically to be used for fair share funding of improvements in the City of Orange. The City encourages the City of Orange to work with the City of Anaheim to update the JCFA to ensure that impacts to Orange infrastructure beyond what has been identified in the City of Orange Circulation Element are mitigated to the extent feasible. A6-14 The JCFA is still in effect, and both cities agreed to amend it if necessary. The City of Anaheim will work with City of Orange to amend the JCFA to a mutually acceptable agreement. The City of Anaheim agrees with the need to update the JCFA. To this end, MM 9-8 shall be amended as follows: The City shall work with the City of Orange to amend the JCFA to ensure that fair share fees collected to mitigate arterial and intersection impacts in the City or Orange are mitigated to the extent feasible. A6-15 Based on the plans in Appendix J, the right of way impacts from implementing the mitigation measure at I-80 should be confined to parking and landscaping of the adjacent properties. A detailed engineering study would be needed to confirm this. The DSEIR and the Traffic Study both state that businesses will be disrupted due to construction and right of way impacts, but does not state that buildings will be impacted. For I-87, the City concurs that it may be possible to implement mitigation measures without impacting buildings, but a detailed engineering analysis would be needed to confirm this. A6-16 A general feasibility assessment will be included for arterial streets. The drawings in Appendix J were created for the CFD, and as stated in an earlier response, the impacted arterial segments within the City of Orange are not included in the CFD funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-37 LETTER A7 – Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-38 LETTER A7 – Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-39 A7. Response to Comments from Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Dated September 27, 2010. A7-1 Comment noted. No response is necessary. A7-2 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. No response is necessary. A7-3 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. No response is necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-40 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-41 LETTER A8 – Orange County Sanitation District (Page 1 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-42 LETTER A8 – Orange County Sanitation District (Page 2 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-43 LETTER A8 – Orange County Sanitation District (Page 3 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-44 LETTER A8 – Orange County Sanitation District (Page 4 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-45 A8. Response to Comments from Patrick McNelly, Principal Staff Analyst, Engineering Planning Division, Orange County Sanitation District, Dated September 27, 2010. A8-1 Per your request, Section 5.10.1, Environmental Setting, of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Sewer Wastewater Treatment and Collection The City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system serves the project vicinity and is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). , District 2 The entire OCSD system The OCSD services area comprises encompasses 479 480 square miles of northern and central Orange County. OCSD operates the third largest sewer system on the west coast, consisting of over 582 579 miles of sewer lines, 15 offsite pumping station, two regional wastewater treatment plants, and an ocean disposal system. Sewer Wastewater flows by gravity from the City sewer system is conveyed to the county OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers, and then to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The major OCSD sanitary sewers serving the Platinum Triangle are the Newhope-Placentia Trunk (State College Boulevard Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. • Newhope-Placentia/Orangewood Basin. The Newhope-Placentia Trunk ranges in diameter from 33 to 42 inches is 39 inches in diameter and flows south down State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue. At Orangewood Avenue, the Newhope-Placentia Trunk turns to the west past the western boundary of the stadium to Lewis Street, then south to Lewis Street through the City of Orange to the County SARI. The properties along Orangewood Avenue are tributary to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk via eight-inch City sewers in and along the street. The northern limit of this basin is generally Gene Autry Way (west of State College Boulevard) and in back the backside of the businesses along Orangewood Avenue. The eastern limit is the Santa Ana River, the southern limit is the City boundary, and the western limit is Interstate 5 • Olive Basin. The Olive Subtrunk is located along Katella Avenue at the northeastern end of the Platinum Triangle area and continues in a westerly direction through Howell Avenue to connect to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk at State College Boulevard. The size of the line within that reach ranges from 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The Olive Subtrunk also collects sewage from areas east of the Santa Ana River. All flows east of the Santa Ana River can be diverted to the SARI. • Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The old county Newhope-Placentia Trunk is located at the north end of the Platinum Triangle area and flows south within State College Boulevard from the Edison Corridor to Orangewood Avenue, then east along Orangewood Avenue to the county SARI. The size of the line within this reach ranges from 36 to 42 inches in diameter. Flows north of the State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue intersection (in the old alignment of the Newhope-Placentia line) can be diverted easterly by the OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer was built to alleviate a deficiency in the Newhope- Placentia Trunk identified by OCSD in their 1991 Master Plan. Currently, there is a diversion structure that allows sewage wastewater to flow either east to the SARI line down Orangewood Avenue or west down Orangewood Avenue from past State College Boulevard to Lewis Street where the Newhope/Placentia trunk turns south. • Santa Ana River Interceptor. The SARI line, a regional brine line, is designed to convey 30 million gallons per day (mgd) of nonreclaimable sewer wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2. the ocean for disposal, after treatment. The nonreclaimable wastewater consists of desalter concentrate, and industrial wastewater, and domestic wastewater. Domestic wastewater is also received on a temporary basis. OCSD maintains operates two wastewater treatment plants within Orange County: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in Fountain Valley; and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. OCSD plans ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-46 to upgrade the level of wastewater treatment at both of its treatment plants to meet secondary treatment standards for the projected 2020 effluent flow of 240 to 320 mgd. The effluent discharge to the ocean is a blend of advanced primary and secondary treated wastewater as specified in the OCSD’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, about four miles northeast of the ocean. The plant receives sewage wastewater from six major sewer pipes and provides advanced primary and secondary treatment. Secondary effluent is either blended with advanced primary effluent and routed to the ocean disposal system, or is sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for further treatment and distribution for reclaimed water uses. Plant No. 2 is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, about 1,500 feet from the ocean. The plant receives sewage wastewater from five major sewer pipes, and all of the effluent from the plant is discharged to the ocean outfall disposal system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-47 LETTER A9 – Orange County Transportation Authority (Page 1 of 1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-48 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-49 A9. Response to Comments from Jennifer Bergener, Acting Director, Rail Programs, Orange County Transportation Authority, Dated September 27, 2010. A9-1 Per your request, Page 3-33 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: OCTA • Measure M funding for roadway improvements; review of bus stops and turnouts Provide necessary freeway improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-50 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-51 LETTER A10 – County of Orange (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-52 LETTER A10 – County of Orange (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-53 A10. Response to Comments from Michael Balsamo, Manager, General Land Use Planning, Orange County Public Works, dated September 29, 2010. A10-1 Per your request, Mitigation Measure 3-2 in the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 3-2 Prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage for the project must be obtained by electronically submitting permit registration documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction permit prescribed method by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters. (5.5-2) At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report set forth in for the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332. (5.5-2) A10-2 Per your request, Mitigation Measure 3-2 in the DSEIR has been revised. Please refer to response A10-1. A10-3 Per your request, Mitigation Measure 10-17 in the DSEIR has been revised as follows 10-17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Platinum triangle Drainage Study Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones (Appendix E of the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study) of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, 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, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the city Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. Such development will be subject to review, approval and permitting by the County of Orange with regard to the impacts to the receiving regional flood control facilities owned by the Orange ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-54 County Flood Control District (OCFCD). New or improved inlets to regional flood control facilities cannot be permitted without the construction of flow restricting features/devices upstream or improvements to the receiving regional system. (5.5-3) A10-4 Per your request, OC Public Works will be added to the Storm Drain improvements map legend in Appendix J, Chapter J3 of the DSEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-55 LETTER I1 – Dennis T. Davis (Page 1 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-56 LETTER I1 – Dennis T. Davis (Page 2 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-57 LETTER I1 – Dennis T. Davis (Page 3 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-58 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-59 I1. Response to Comments from Dennis T. Davis, Dated September 17, 2010. I1-1 As the commenter noted, noise generated from the Disneyland fireworks display is part of the existing ambient noise environment. Noise generated by these fireworks and that of Angels stadium will be audible at the proposed residential uses of the Platinum Triangle. Stadium event noise was discussed on pages 5.5-17 and 5.5-28 of the DEIR. The center of Disneyland is approximately 6,700 feet away from the edge of the proposed residential uses whereas the proposed residential uses could be 1,500 feet from the fireworks display of Angel Stadium. These differences in distances would result in fireworks noise being 12 decibels higher at the residential uses closest to Angel stadium as compared to the residences closest to Disneyland. Even though CEQA is concerned with a project’s impact on the environment (and not the environment’s impact on a project), the SEIR had identified potential significant noise impacts from mobile and stationary sources of noise (see Impact As such, mitigation measure 5-2 of the SEIR requires an acoustical report to be prepared which details the noise attenuation measures necessary to achieve the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations) of 45 dBA CNEL for interior noise levels as well as not exceeding the nighttime awakening noise level of 81 dBA Lmax. Consequently, noise associated with mobile and stationary sources, which includes noise generated by the fireworks at Disneyland, will be mitigated and be consistent with both the State of California’s interior noise standard in addition to the nighttime awakening threshold. I1-2 The EIR found that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality because the project would exceed SCAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance (see Table 5.2-7 in the DSEIR). However, the project is consistent with SCAQMD’s adopted Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as discussed under Impact 5.2-6 beginning on Page 5.2-24 of the DSEIR. As discussed in Section 5.2.7, Mitigation Measures, the project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures related to air quality, including requiring electric vehicle charging stations (see Mitigation Measure 2-6d.). The City of Anaheim feels the DSEIR adequately discusses issues related to air quality for the reasons stated herein. I1-3 The purpose of CEQA is to protect the environment from proposed projects, not to protect proposed projects from the existing environment. The fireworks displays at Angel Stadium and Disneyland are part of the existing background condition and will be unaffected by the proposed Platinum Triangle Project. Although not related to the proposed project, it should be noted that the Angels Stadium and Disney fireworks displays are permitted by the Anaheim Fire Department and have been reviewed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for air quality issues. SCAQMD particulate monitoring performed in 2002 found no exceedance of State Relative Exposure Levels (RELs) and the AB2588 Health Risk Assessment values determined that the cancer exposure risk from the fireworks displays is 1.8 in one million maximum cancer risk. Potential air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions from the I-5 and SR- 57 Freeways are discussed under Impact 5.2-4 beginning on Page 5.2-20 of the DSEIR. I1-4 Please refer to Section 5.6 of the DSEIR for a discussion of the population and housing impacts related to the project. As discussed under Impact 5.6-1, project implementation will improve the current jobs-housing ratio in The Platinum Triangle from 13.47 to 2.19, which is substantially more balanced. In addition, the City-wide jobs-housing ratio will improve from 2.02 today, to 1.85 in 2035. A more balanced community will reduce vehicle miles travelled in the region and reduce vehicle emissions. Therefore, the jobs-housing balance in The Platinum Triangle and the City as a whole will improve in the future, as discussed in the DSEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-60 I1-5 The proposed project allows up to 4.9 million square feet of commercial development within The Platinum Triangle. This will allow for a variety of commercial uses including grocery stores, dry cleaners, restaurants, entertainment, retail, etc. These uses will develop over time as the number of residents increases in The Platinum Triangle. As a result, implementation of the proposed Master Land Use Plan will result in a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment which allows for multiple modes of transportation and reduces reliance on the automobile. I1-6 The Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model was used to determine the study area for the traffic analysis. If any street showed an increase in traffic of 51 or more trips in the peak hour, that street or intersection would be analyzed. According to the traffic model plots provided in the appendix of the traffic study, Orangewood Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard does not meet the minimum analysis criteria. This means that the Platinum Triangle will not generate enough traffic to cause impacts on Orangewood Avenue. It should be noted that the traffic model assumes that the City of Garden Grove will fund and construct the widening of Orangewood Avenue to four lanes as shown in its General Plan. It should also be noted that the City of Garden Grove retained Iteris to perform a traffic study to show the impacts of the Platinum Triangle on the City of Garden Grove’s streets and intersections, and this study shows that there are no impacts from the Platinum Triangle within the City of Garden Grove. This traffic analysis was performed as part of the City of Garden Grove’s General Plan Update. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-61 LETTER I2 – Amy Davis (Page 1 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-62 LETTER I2 – Amy Davis (Page 2 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-63 LETTER I2 – Amy Davis (Page 3 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-64 LETTER I2 – Amy Davis (Page 4 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-65 I2. Response to Comments from Amy Davis, Dated September 18, 2010. I2-1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-21177. Its basic purposes are to: inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; require changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and disclose to the public the reasons why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved. The DSEIR has been prepared consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. I2-2 Though not part of the proposed project, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Project is a partnership between the City of Anaheim and the OCTA, and is a multi-year project, that will offer new and/or expanded transportation services and development. The project shall consist of site work and preparation, transportation center and supporting facilities, trackwork and platforms, parking, public art, and access and street improvements (completion date is expected mid-2013) and shall serve as an intermodal hub for several transit modes such as Amtrak, Metrolink, local and international bus, shuttles, bikes/pedestrians, Fixed Guideway, High-Speed Rail, and the proposed California-Nevada Maglev. Within the Platinum Triangle, cross sections are identified for all streets, including those streets that lead directly to ARTIC. These cross sections include sidewalk widths that meet ADA minimum requirements. Additionally, curb ramps meeting ADA accessibility requirements will be installed at all intersections in the Platinum Triangle. These improvements will be funded by the Community Facilities District, ensuring that all sidewalks within the Platinum Triangle will be accessible upon completion. I2-3 Figure 3-9 in the DSEIR illustrates the existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the Platinum Triangle and surrounding area. As shown, the proposed project will add bike lanes to Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street. In addition, the Community Facilities District will upgrade Orangewood Avenue and Douglass Road to incorporate bike lanes. Bicycle parking is one of the TDM measures that all office and retail development will be required to consider for any development within the Platinum Triangle, and will be addressed on an individual project basis. Therefore, bicycle facilities will be implemented as part of the proposed project, significantly improving bicycle access throughout the project area. I2-4 Impacts to water supply are fully addressed in Section 5.10 of the DSEIR. In addition, a water supply assessment pursuant to SB 610 was completed for the project and included in Appendix G. It should be noted that the Platinum Triangle area is fully developed and the majority of the area is covered with impervious surfaces. As the existing industrial uses are replaced with mixed-use developments, the amount of landscaping will increase. As a result, more opportunities for groundwater recharge will be created with project implementation. In addition, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has adopted a fourth term municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit for Orange County on May 22, 2009, which will govern how water quality and hydrologic impacts will be addressed as further development/redevelopment of the project area proceeds. This permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030) requires priority projects to address post-construction stormwater runoff generated by the 85th percentile storm event through on-site filtration, reuse/harvest, and/or evapotranspiration (low-impact development). Order R8-2009-0030 also requires that priority projects where hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) are identified closely match post-development flow rates to predevelopment conditions for a two-year storm event. As a result, no significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated as discussed in the DSEIR. I2-5 The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix F of the DSEIR) clearly identifies all impacts to state facilities. Caltrans concurs with these ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-66 impacts and mitigation measures. The City of Anaheim is working with Caltrans in a cooperative manner to reach an agreement on how to fund improvements identified in the EIR, including the impacts identified in the Orange Crush area. I2-6 Except for schools, all services identified are commercial establishments which are specifically analyzed in ATAM. These services are limited to locations where commercial land uses are permitted in the PTMLUP. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 9-6, schools will be required to do a separate analysis to determine compatibility and address any necessary mitigation. I2-7 “When a lead agency is considering whether to prepare an SEIR, it is specifically authorized to limit its consideration of the later project to effects not considered in connection with the earlier project.” (Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Rancho Cal. Water District (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 425.) Therefore, the DSEIR properly limits it’s analysis to the air quality impacts associated with the current project. However, the impacts associated with the prior project are also provided (see Table 5.2-7 of the DSEIR). In addition, all projects within the Platinum Triangle will be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-10 beginning on Page 5.2-30 of the DSEIR. It should be noted, the air quality analysis provided in Section 5.2 of the DSEIR addresses both local impacts in Anaheim and regional air quality impacts in the South Coast Air Basin. No additional analysis is necessary. I2-8 Please refer to Response I2-7. I2-9 Potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are discussed under Impact 5.2-4 beginning on Page 5.2-20. As shown on Table 5.2-8, the proposed project would not cause any exceedances of the 1 hour or 8 hour State or Federal CO standards. In addition, diesel particulate matter concentrations, which are most harmful to heart and lung patients, will be lower in the future due to the proposed project and implementation of new CARB air quality regulations. Therefore, the health risks have been addressed in the DSEIR and no additional analysis is necessary. I2-10 The issue related to placing residential units within 500 feet of a freeway is discussed under Impact 5.2-5 beginning on Page 5.2-22 of the DSEIR. In addition, Mitigation Measures 2-7 through 2-9 have been included to address issues related to toxic air contaminants (TAC’s) including fine particulate matter. On page 5.2-37 the EIR concludes that placing residential uses within 500 feet of I-5 and SR-57 would result in significant and unavoidable health impacts. Therefore, the health risks have been addressed in the DSEIR and no additional analysis is necessary. However, it should be noted that recent studies have called into serious question the validity of CARB’s and SCAQMD’s studies that purport to trace human health risk to diesel particulate matter. In fact, CARB has acknowledged that its previous studies overestimate the potential cancer risks from diesel particulate on adjacent residential homeowners by 340%. (See San Francisco Chronicle. Overestimate Fueled State’s Landmark Diesel law, 10/08/10; Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973-2002, James Enstrom, University of California, Los Angeles; California’s Diesel Regulations Are Hot Air, Henry Miller, 06/09; see also Long Term Ozone Exposure and Mortality (2009.) Thus, even though the EIR has concluded a significant and unavoidable impact on human health from DPM, it is likely that the EIR overestimates this potential impact because the EIR is conservatively predicated on CARB and SCAQMD data that appears to have grossly overestimated the human health risks from DPM in the Basin. I2-11 The issue related to stadium event noise is discussed under Impact 5.5-3 beginning on Page 5.5-26 of the DSEIR. The SEIR had identified potential significant noise impacts from mobile and stationary sources of noise. As such, mitigation measure 5-2 of the SEIR requires an acoustical report to be prepared which details the noise attenuation measures necessary to achieve the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations) of 45 dBA CNEL for interior noise levels as well as not exceeding the ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-67 nighttime awakening noise level of 81 dBA Lmax. Consequently, noise associated with mobile and stationary sources, which includes noise generated by the fireworks at Angel Stadium, will be mitigated and be consistent with both the State of California’s interior noise standard in addition to the nighttime awakening threshold. I2-12 The purpose of CEQA is to protect the environment from proposed projects, not to protect proposed projects from the existing environment. The fireworks displays at Angel Stadium and Disneyland are part of the existing background condition and will be unaffected by the proposed Platinum Triangle Project. As a result, they are not discussed as potential project impacts in the DEIR anymore than inbound flights to JWA or other regional background issues are discussed. Although not caused by the proposed project, it should be noted that the Angels Stadium and Disneyland fireworks displays are permitted by the Anaheim Fire Department and have been reviewed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for air quality issues. SCAQMD particulate monitoring performed in 2002 found no exceedance of State Relative Exposure Levels (RELs) and the AB2588 Health Risk Assessment values determined that the cancer exposure risk from the fireworks displays is 1.8 in one million maximum cancer risk. I2-13 Please refer to Response I2-12. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-68 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-69 LETTER I3 – Amy Davis (Page 1 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-70 LETTER I3 – Amy Davis (Page 2 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-71 LETTER I3 – Amy Davis (Page 3 of 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-72 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-73 I3. Response to Comments from Amy Davis, Dated September 19, 2010. I3-1 Impacts related to geology and soils, including potential liquefaction, was addressed in SEIR No. 332. Since there are no additional impacts related to the revised project, geology and soils is not addressed in SEIR No. 339. As discussed in SEIR No. 332, “liquefaction has the potential to impact areas of the project generally located between the SR-57 Freeway and the Santa Ana River. Mapped liquefaction zones are intended to prompt more detailed, site specific, geotechnical studies as required by the California Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. In addition, the City’s building codes require structures in these areas to be designed to withstand the potential impacts that could be caused by liquefaction. Property damage, personal injury, and loss of life may result from a major earthquake in the Project Area. Regional active faults are typical of Southern California; therefore, it is reasonable to expect a moderately strong ground motion seismic event to occur in the City of Anaheim in the future. However, compliance with the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Goals and Policies, existing codes and regulations, and mitigation measures, will ensure that potential impacts will be less than significant.” In addition, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Pub. Resources Code section 2621 et seq) prohibits the location of any structure for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault line. Pursuant to data provided by the State’s Geologist, there are no active earthquake fault lines located in the City of Anaheim. I3-2 An echo happens when the sound waves reach a surface, bounce off of it and travel in the opposite direction. For optimum echoes, the surface should be perpendicular to the waves, and as frictionless as possible. In places like the Grand Canyon, you can hear many echoes because the sound waves bounce off of surfaces, then others bounce off of other surfaces, and some will bounce back to you, but at different times. In the case of the Platinum Triangle, buildings will be of varied heights and structures will be separated by parks, parking areas, and landscaping. As a result, pursuant to the noise consultants who drafted the noise section of the DEIR, echos are not anticipated to be a noise concern in the project area. I3-3 It should be noted that the Platinum Triangle area is fully developed and the majority of the area is covered with paved surfaces. As the existing industrial uses are replaced with mixed-use developments, the amount of landscaping and shade will increase. Therefore, the potential for a “heat island” will actually be reduced with implementation of the proposed project. I3-4 Issues related to shade/shadow impacts are discussed in Section 5.1 of the DSEIR beginning on Page 5.1-10. No additional analysis is necessary. I3-5 In accordance with Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, a “Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As a result, CEQA does not typically require analysis of economic or fiscal impacts unless they could result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. As a result, a market demand analysis is not required under CEQA. However, it should be noted that 8,365 of the original 10,266 units included in The Platinum Triangle have been entitled. As a result, the City is pursuing the proposed project to accommodate future residential development within The Platinum Triangle. The current housing downturn is not likely to have any effect on the 20 to 25 year buildout timeframe for the project. The proposed project consists of a mixed-use overlay over portions of the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the existing businesses and industrial uses can remain indefinitely. The proposed project allows for redevelopment of existing industrial uses based on market demands. In addition, the proposed project balances office, commercial, and residential uses. As a result, the proposed project is expected to generate additional revenues to the City, even after the cost of City services has been factored in. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-74 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-75 LETTER I4 – Mueller (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-76 LETTER I4 – Mueller (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-77 I4. Response to Comments from Mueller, Dated September 23, 2010. I4-1 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I4-2 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I4-3 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I4-4 Please refer to General Response 2.2 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I4-5 For the reasons stated herein, the City of Anaheim feels that the proposed project provides an appropriate balance of jobs and housing at all income levels. However, your comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-78 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-79 LETTER I5 – Amy Davis (Page 1 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-80 LETTER I5 – Amy Davis (Page 2 of 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-81 I5. Response to Comments from Amy Davis, dated September 24, 2010. I5-1 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I5-2 Water supply issues are addressed in Section 5.10 of the DSEIR. In addition, a highly comprehensive water supply assessment has been completed for the project and included in Appendix H of the DSEIR. As set forth in the WSA and EIR, the City is located atop a rich groundwater aquifer that is capable of meeting future demand. The commentator is direct to Section 5.10 of the DSEIR for a more comprehensive discussion of the water supply issues. I5-3 Please refer to Response I5-2. I5-4 Comment noted. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-21177. Its basic purposes are to: inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; require changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and disclose to the public the reasons why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved. The DSEIR has been prepared consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-82 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-83 LETTER I6 – Anaheim Neighborhood Association (Page 1 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-84 LETTER I6 – Anaheim Neighborhood Association (Page 2 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-85 LETTER I6 – Anaheim Neighborhood Association (Page 3 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-86 LETTER I6 – Anaheim Neighborhood Association (Page 4 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-87 I6. Response to Comments from Mitchell Caldwell, Chairman, Anaheim Neighborhood Association, dated September 27, 2010. I6-1 Comment noted. No response is necessary. I6-2 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I6-3 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I6-4 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I6-5 The Revised Platinum Triangle project has been placed on the Planning Commission agenda for their regularly scheduled meeting on October 11, 2010. It will be a public hearing and all members of the public will have an opportunity to provide testimony. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-88 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-89 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 1 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-90 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 2 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-91 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 3 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-92 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 4 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-93 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 5 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-94 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 6 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-95 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 7 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-96 LETTER I7 – The Kennedy Commission (Page 8 of 8) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-97 I7. Response to Comments from Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, The Kennedy Commission, dated September 27, 2010. I7-1 Comment noted. No response is necessary. I7-2 Please refer to Responses I7-4 through I7-11below. I7-3 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration I7-4 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I7-5 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I7-6 Please refer to General Response 2.3 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in thie FSEIR. I7-7 Please refer to General Response 2.2 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I7-8 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I7-9 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I7-10 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I7-11 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-98 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-99 LETTER I8 – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (Page 1 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-100 LETTER I8 – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (Page 2 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-101 LETTER I8 – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (Page 3 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-102 LETTER I8 – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (Page 4 of 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-103 I8. Response to Comments from Robert Nothoff, Policy Analyst, Orange County Communities for Responsible Development, No date provided. I8-1 The comments and assertions made by the commentator under the heading “Foundational Concerns” are wrong and reflect a misunderstanding of the DSEIR. First, the 1.5 residents per unit number referenced on page 5.6-3 of the DSEIR is the average number of residents the City anticipates per dwelling unit to be located in the Platinum Triangle. The City arrived at this average number based on three data points. First, 1.5 residents per dwelling unit is the average number of residents that live in the high density residential development projects located in the redevelopment project area in downtown San Diego adjacent to Petco Park. Second, the City of Irvine has determined, based on existing occupancies and empirical studies, that an average of 1.3 persons per dwelling unit occur within the residential development projects located in the Irvine Business Complex (“IBC”) (an area zoned for mixed use, high density residential) located near the I-405 freeway and Jamboree Boulevard. Third, there are three high density residential projects that have already been constructed in the Platinum Triangle and these residential projects contain approximately 1.4 residents per dwelling unit. The proposed project is intended to facilitate mixed use, high density development adjacent to employment centers, transit stations such as ARTIC and entertainment centers such as Angel Stadium and The Anaheim Resort. Many of the attributes of the proposed project are similar to the newer, high density neighborhoods adjacent to Petco Park in San Diego and those already developed (and being developed) in the IBC. Because these existing, similar developments reflect an actualized average number of less than 1.5 residents per dwelling unit, the City believes it is appropriate to anticipate approximately 1.5 residents per dwelling unit for the Platinum Triangle. In addition, 1.5 residents per dwelling unit is also the norm with respect to other high density urban infill development in other parts of state such as San Francisco and Sacramento. The reasons for this is that this type of high density development is most attractive to single professionals who desire a simple, relatively maintenance free lifestyle adjacent to employment centers. Thus, the City’s expected average 1.5 residents per dwelling unit is well within the average found in similar high density areas throughout the State. However, the average of 1.5 residents per household was not used to assess environmental impacts. Rather, the 1.5 residents per household figure was only used to estimate the number of additional residents to be possibly generated by the project. The environmental assessment, as reflected in the DSEIR, was based on increased land use intensification as reflected in the project description. For example, traffic, air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts were calculated using the traffic volumes projected by the Anaheim Traffic Area Model (ATAM). The ATAM model is a socioeconomic based model which converts land use into residents and employees. For residential land uses, data is quantified by single family and multi-family dwelling units, but does not address occupancy. Therefore, housing factors used in ATAM are obtained from the Orange County Projections (OCP), and provided by OCTA. These occupancy rates are used citywide for all single family and multi-family units in order to maintain consistency with OCTA’s traffic model. Public services and utility demands were also based on land uses, not projected population. The ATAM model has been approved by OCTA and similar versions of the model are used by cities throughout Orange County to assess the likely traffic increases due to programmatic land use changes. In sum, pursuant to the ATAM, proposed land use codes based on the proposed project are added to “traffic area zones” (“TAZs”) located within the defined project area. The ATAM model then assigns increased vehicle trips to each TAZ based on the proposed land uses envisioned in the project area. As set forth above, the California Department of Transportation reviewed and approved of the City’s use of this model to assess traffic impacts. Once average daily trips (ADTs) are generated by the ATAM using this methodology, the ADTs are used to assess potential project traffic impacts. In addition, the ADTs are then converted into tail pipe emissions for purposes of assessing the proposed project’s likely air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and to also assess operational noise impacts from increased vehicle ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-104 traffic from the project. If one were to convert the ADTs generated for the proposed Project based on the ATAM model to an average resident per household figure, the resulting figure would be approximately 2.7 residents per dwelling unit. Thus, based on a comparison of actual average residents per dwelling unit as evidenced by similar high density, mixed use developments in the State which equates to approximately 1.5, versus the 2.7 average resident per dwelling unit that one obtains when converting the results of the land use based ATAM model, the DSEIR prepared for the proposed project likely overestimated project impacts across most CEQA Guidelines Appendix G topical areas. Only the need for additional parkland was projected using the 1.5 persons per household. However, actual parkland dedication will be in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code; thus use of the 1.5 persons per household is irrelevant to the provision of future parks. Thus, the assertion that the 1.5 ratio is somehow flawed, and that the DSEIR is also somehow flawed, is false. If anything the DSEIR likely overestimates project impacts. I8-2 Please refer to General Response 2.2 and 2.3 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. In addition, the traffic impact analysis that was prepared as part of the DSEIR is consistent with methodological approaches approved by the California Department of Transportation and used by other cities and transportation planning agencies throughout the State. Pursuant to the ATAM model, ADTs are assigned to TAZs and the ATAM model then “disperses” the ADTs throughout the arterial system based on anticipated directional splits. Trips to and from the proposed project are called “Trip Ends” and the traffic model assumes average daily trips to and from the project area on a daily basis. Each trip end is assigned an average trip length based on the land use at issue. The average trip length used in the TIA for the proposed project with respect to workers traveling from home to employment locations within the Platinum Triangle (and back) is an average of approximately 12.5 miles, which is consistent with the expected trip to be generated by projects such as this in the SCAG region. The ATAM model is based on years worth of empirical data and is viewed as accurate by regulatory agencies such as Caltrans. This trip length reasonably captures anticipated commute trips to and from the project site. Thus, the DSEIR does adequately analyze worker commutes to and from the proposed project location and the TIA did not shorten any trip based on the co-location of jobs and housing as it reasonably could have done based on other empirical data. Thus, again, the DSEIR in fact likely over estimates rather than underestimates project impacts. I8-3 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I8-4 Please refer to Response I8-2. I8-5 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-105 LETTER I9 – Public Law Center (Page 1 of 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-106 LETTER I9 – Public Law Center (Page 2 of 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-107 LETTER I9 – Public Law Center (Page 3 of 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-108 LETTER I9 – Public Law Center (Page 4 of 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-109 LETTER I9 – Public Law Center (Page 5 of 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-110 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 3-111 I9. Response to Comments from Ezequiel Gutierrez, Jr., Staff Attorney, Public Law Center, September 27, 2010. I9-1 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-2 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-3 All mixed use areas will be connected to ARTIC via existing transit routes as well as the future OCTA Bravo routes and Go Local projects. In addition, the standard development agreement in the PTMLUP and MM 9-15 of the EIR requires all employers and many residential areas to connect to ARTIC with shuttle services, possibly as an extension of the existing ART system. Though not part of the proposed project, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Project is a partnership between the City of Anaheim and the OCTA, and is a multi-year project, that will offer new and/or expanded transportation services and development. The project shall consist of site work and preparation, transportation center and supporting facilities, trackwork and platforms, parking, public art, and access and street improvements (completion date is expected mid-2013) and shall serve as an intermodal hub for several transit modes such as Amtrak, Metrolink, local and international bus, shuttles, bikes/pedestrians, Fixed Guideway, High-Speed Rail, and the proposed California-Nevada Maglev. While it is acknowledged that pedestrian and bicycle access within the Platinum Triangle is currently limited, this will be addressed through implementation of the project. Figure 3-9 in the DSEIR illustrates the existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the Platinum Triangle and surrounding area. As shown, the proposed project will add bike lanes to Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street. In addition, the Community Facilities District will upgrade Orangewood Avenue and Douglass Road to incorporate bike lanes. Bicycle parking is one of the TDM measures that all office and retail development will be required to consider for any development within the Platinum Triangle, and will be addressed on an individual project basis. Therefore, bicycle facilities will be implemented as part of the proposed project, significantly improving bicycle access throughout the project area. I9-4 Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. See also the Response to Comment I8, above. The project’s potential impacts have been evaluated to the extent feasible at this programmatic level and the project’s likely impacts. I9-5 Please refer to General Response 2.2 and 2.3 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I9-6 Please refer to Response I9-5. I9-7 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-8 The ARTIC project was approved by the City Council on September 28, 2010. As part of the approvals an EIR was certified. NEPA review is underway and approval by the Federal Transit Authority is pending. I9-9 Comment noted. Please refer to General Response 2.2 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Response to Comments The Planning Center October 2010 Page 3-112 I9-10 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-11 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-12 Comment noted. Please refer to General Response 2.2 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I9-13 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. I9-14 The City has comprehensively addressed the issue of affordable housing in it’s certified Housing Element and it’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Please refer to General Response 2.1 in Section 2, Summary of General Responses, in this FSEIR. I9-15 Please refer to Response I9-5. I9-16 Comment is hereby noted, included in the official environmental record of the proposed project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Anaheim decision- makers for their review and consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-1 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DSEIR based upon additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DSEIR publication; and/or typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DSEIR. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DSEIR. Changes made to the DSEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold and double underline to signify additions. 4.2 DSEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DSEIR. Pages 1-15 through 1-64, Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, are hereby modified as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft EIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-3• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1-1: The Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference number from MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 1-1 Prior to approval of a As part of the Final Site Plan application, where adjacent uses are deemed to be shadow sensitive (i.e.e.g., residential, recreational, outdoor restaurants, and pedestrian areas), the property owner/developer for future development projects shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project would not preclude shadow sensitive receptors’ exposure to natural sunlight for at least 50 percent of duration for the season, for at least 50 percent of the shade-sensitive area, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (5.1-1) Less than significant 5.2 AIR QUALITY 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate substantially more short-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and would continue to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (FSEIR No. 332), and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Construction 2-1 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to reduce construction-related emissions; however, the resultant value is expected to remain significant. (5.2-1) a) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to reduce operational emissions. b) Where feasible, the The contractor shall use Tier 3 or higher, as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, off-road construction equipment with higher air pollutant emissions standards for equipment greater than 50 horsepower, based on manufacturer’s availability. low emission mobile construction. c) The contractor shall utilize existing power sources power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel-power generators, where feasible. 2-2 Ongoing during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-4• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation following measures in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce in order to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: (5.2-2) a) The property owner/developer shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. b) In addition to the standard measures, the property owner/developer shall implement supplemental measures as feasible to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. To assure compliance, the City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. The measures to be implemented are listed below: a) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall rRe-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible to achieve a minimum control efficiency for PM10 of 5 percent. b) o During all grading activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers Pave to on-site haul roads to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 85 percent compared to travel on unpaved, untreated roads. c) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall pPhase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d) o The property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSchedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. Restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with local public agencies. e) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant PM10–efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. f) o During active demolition and debris removal and grading, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall sSuspend demolition and grading operations when during high winds speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to achieve an ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-5• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation emissions control efficiency for PM10 under worst-case wind conditions of 98 percent in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. Wash off trucks leaving site. g) o During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall mMaintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other suitable means to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 91 percent. o Cover payloads on trucks hauling soil using tarps or other suitable means. h) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site to achieve an emissions reduction control efficiency for PM10 of 61 percent. i) During active demolition and debris removal, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall apply water to disturbed soils at the end of each day to achieve an emission control efficiency for PM10 of 10 percent. j) During scraper unloading and loading, the property owner/developer’s construc- tion contractor shall ensure that actively disturbed areas maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent by use of a moveable sprinkler system or water truck to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 69 percent. k) During all construction activities, the property owner/developer’s construction contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour to achieve a control efficiency for PM10 of 57 percent. 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, 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 at the project site. (5.2-3) 2-4 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that high-solids or water-based low emissions paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regulations. To ensure that volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings do not exceed AQMDs significance thresholds for architectural coatings, ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-6• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation the number of gallons of coatings shall be restricted, to the maximum extent feasible, to the maximum daily coating usage identified in Table 5.2-9 of the SEIR. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall specify the use of high volume/low pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Where feasible, the paint contractor shall use hand applications as well. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. Additionally, the property owner/developer’s shall specify the use of high- volume/low-pressure spray equipment or hand application. Air-atomized spray techniques shall not be permitted. Plans shall also show that property owner/developers shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting, or use prepainted construction materials, to the extent feasible. (5.2-4) Additional Mitigation No addition mitigation measures are available. 5.2-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate substantially more long-term air pollutants compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and would continue to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 prepared for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332, and are applicable to the Proposed Project. (For mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, see also Chapter 5.10, Utilities and Service Systems). Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from MMP No.106A is shown in (italics). Operation 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report, Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010 traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) shall be implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. 2-6 Prior to approval of building permits, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent at the time of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall show the following: Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-7• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce roof temperatures significantly during the summer and; therefore, reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at the following website: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs/ or other similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or other similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square-feet. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark-colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) The following Mitigation Measure from the 2005 EIR for the Adopted MLUP is no longer applicable because SCAQMD adopted Rule 445, Wood-Burning Devices. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits installation of wood-burning fireplaces. Consequently, all fireplaces installed within the Platinum Triangle MLUP would be required to be gas-burning and former Mitigation Measure 5.2-7 is no longer required. 5.2-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the placement of a note on the plans stating that to reduce the health impacts of air quality hazards within The Platinum Triangle, placement of wood-burning fireplaces in residential units shall be prohibited. As an alternative to wood-burning fireplaces, gas fireplaces may be used. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-8• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2-3: Construction activities would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-4 would also reduce localized concentration of air pollutants during construction. Additional Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are available. Significant and unavoidable 5.2-4: Mobile sources of emissions related to the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable 5.2-5: Sensitive land uses within 500 feet of State Route 57 and Interstate 5 or within the recommended buffer distances to facilities emitting TACs may be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. Additional Mitigation 2-7 Applicants for new residential developments in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan within 500 feet of Interstate 5 (I-5) or State Route 57 (SR-57) shall be required to install high efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or better in the intake of residential ventilation systems. MERV 14 filters have a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 90 percent for particulates 1.0 micron to 3.0 microns in size and a Particle Size Efficiency rating of 75 to 85 percent for particles 0.3 to 1.0 micron in size. A MERV 14 filter creates more resistance to airflow because the filter media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems shall be installed with a fan unit designed to force air through the MERV 14 filter. To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV 14 filters in the individual units, the following shall occur: a) Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from I-5/SR-57 for all affected units. b) For rental units within 500 feet of the I-5/SR-57, the owner/property manager shall maintain and replace MERV 14 filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I-5 or SR-57 when windows are open. c) For residential owned units within 500 feet of I-5/SR-57, the homeowner’s association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the MERV 14 filter in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates from I- 5/SR-57 when windows are open. Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-9• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 2-8 Based on the recommended buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board, applicants for new developments in the Platinum Triangle shall place residential structures and active outdoor recreational areas outside of the recommended buffer distances to the following stationary air pollutant sources: • 1,000 feet from the truck bays with an existing distribution center that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week. • 1,000 feet from an existing chrome plating facility. • 300 feet from a dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using one machine and 500 feet from dry-cleaning facility using perchloroethylene using two machines. • 50 feet from gas pumps within a gas-dispensing facility and 300 feet from gas pumps within a gasoline-dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater. 2-9 All outdoor active-use public recreational areas associated with development projects shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on Interstate 5 and State Route 57. 5.2-6: The Proposed Project is consistent with the 2007 AQMP. Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not Applicable 5.2-7: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors; however, implementation of the Proposed Project could result in new residential land uses located near existing odor generators. Potentially significant Applicable Measures from MMP No. 106A No mitigation measures are applicable. Additional Mitigation 2-10 For projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial odors, which includes but is not limited to: • wastewater treatment plants • composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities • fiberglass manufacturing facilities • painting/coating operations • coffee roasters • food processing facilities Project Applicant shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not received three or more verified odor complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received three such complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-10• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation BACTs) are capable of reducing potential odors to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better at all residential units. 5.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.3-1: The Proposed Project would place additional demands on groundwater supplies due to the construction of a new water well. Less than significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 3-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans documenting that the design of all aboveground structures (with the exception of parking structures) shall be at least three feet higher that the 100-year flood zone, where applicable, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All structures below this level shall be floodproofed to prevent damage to property or harm to people. (5.5-1) 3-2 Prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage for the project must be obtained by electronically submitting permit registration documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction permit prescribed method by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters. (5.5-2) At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-11• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report set forth in for the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332. (5.5-2) Additional Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are required. 5.4 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.4-1: Project Implementation would conflict with applicable plans, policies, and/or regulation. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.4-2: Some development pursuant to the Proposed Project will not be compatible with the Southern California Gas Company’s existing microwave tower. Potentially significant No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the potential conflict with the microwave tower’s telecommunication function anticipated by the high-rise towers. Significant and unavoidable 5.5 NOISE 5.5-1: Build-out of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial, permanent increase in ambient traffic noise levels within the vicinity of existing noise- sensitive receptors. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans for any project-related roadway widening, the City shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to design project acoustical features that will limit traffic noise at noise sensitive uses to levels that are below the City’s noise ordinance. These treatments shall be noted on the street improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and may include, but are not limited to, the replacement of windows and doors at existing residences with acoustically rated windows and doors. Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5-1 will reduce impacts related traffic noise increases to the extent feasible. However, some areas may experience noise levels in exceedance of the City’s noise ordinance prior to implementation of roadway improvements and associated noise attenuation. Consequently, Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-12• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.5-2: Build-out of the Platinum Triangle would not generate significant levels of stationary- source noise that exceeds the City of Anaheim’s noise standards from truck loading/unloading activities and operation of HVAC systems. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.5-3: Noise-sensitive residential units proposed within the Platinum Triangle may be exposed to mobile- and stationary-source noise levels that exceed state and/or City standards. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the SEIR No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers are shown in (italics). 5-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any project generating over 100 peak hour trips, the project property owner/developers shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that the development will be sound- attenuated against present and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources industrial, commercial, stadium, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior and exterior noise standards as follows: (5.7.2) a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations). b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall minimize nighttime awakening from stadium event noise and train horns such that interior single-event noise levels are below 81 dBA Lmax. The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project. Additional Mitigation 5-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during a stadium event will be Significant and unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-13• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation provided to all future tenants in the Stadium District. 5-4 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that occupancy disclosure notices regarding potential for exterior noise levels to be elevated during sounding of train horns will be provided to all future tenants facing an at-grade crossing of the Orange Count Line. 5.5-4: Building façades that are exposed to noise levels that exceed 69 dBA would require architectural improvements to achieve the required 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level limits. Potentially Significant Same mitigation measures as Impact 5.5-3. Less than significant 5.5-5: Construction of the Proposed Project would generate substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of vibration-sensitive land uses. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-5 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, to reduce noise and vibration impacts from the impact pile driver, the construction contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of using auger cast piles or a similar system to drill holes to construct cast-in-place piles for a pile-supported transfer slab foundation system. This alternative construction method would reduce the duration necessary for use of the impact pile driver and/or eliminate the need to use pile drivers altogether. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the form of a letter from the construction contractor. Significant and unavoidable 5.5-6: Implementation of the Proposed Project could expose vibration-sensitive receptors to substantial levels of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise in the vicinity of the AMTRAK/Metrolink line. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A No existing mitigation measures measure from MMP No. 106A apply. Additional Mitigation 5-6 Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan, if new vibration-sensitive land uses are located in close proximity to the Orange County Line, the project applicant shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. If perceptible levels of vibration are detected, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features, such as setbacks and trenches, and/or required building improvements, such as harder building materials steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result in perceptible levels of vibration that cause human annoyance to future project residents. The site design features shall be identified on the Final Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-14• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.5-7: Development within the Platinum Triangle could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in the vicinity of existing noise-sensitive land uses during construction activities. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A 5-7 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise: (5.7-1) a) Noise generated by construction, shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, before 7:00 AM and after 7:00 PM, as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b) Limit the hours of operation of equipment that produces noise levels noticeably above general construction noise levels to the hours of 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. c) All internal combustion engines on all of the construction equipment shall be properly outfitted with well maintained muffler systems. Additional Mitigation 5-8 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. 5-9 Ongoing during construction activities, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring project contractors to locate all stationary noise sources generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from occupied noise-sensitive receptors as is feasible. 5-10 Ongoing during construction activities, material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall also be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70. Significant and unavoidable 5.5-8: Heliports/helipads within and surrounding the Platinum Triangle would not significantly expose future residents and/or workers to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.6-1: The Proposed Project would result in direct population growth due to new housing and employment opportunities in the Project Area. Potentially significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-15• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.7 PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.7-1: The Proposed Project would require additional fire facilities to serve project development. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, plans Plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed by the property owner/developer prior to each final Building and Zoning inspection. (5.9-1) Additional Mitigation 7-2 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for fire facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. Less than significant POLICE PROTECTION 5.7-2: The Proposed Project would require an increase in police facilities and staffing needs. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-3 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including implementation of Ordinance 6016 and the concept of crime prevention through environmental design building design, circulation, site planning and lighting of parking structure and parking areas). Rooftop addresses shall be provided for all parking structures (for the police helicopter). Minimum size for numbers shall be four feet in height and two feet in width. The lines for the numbers shall be six inches thick and spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. All numbers shall have a contrasting color to the parking structure and shall face the street to which the structure is addressed. (5.9-2) 7-4 Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for a parking structure , the The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit monitoring and recording or other substitute security Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-16• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation measures as may be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections. (5.9-3) 7-5 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the The property owner/developer shall submit design plans that shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department. (5.9-4) 7-6 Ongoing during project operation, if If the Anaheim Police Department of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. (5.9-5) Additional Mitigation 7-7 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Public Safety Impact Fee, as amended from time to time, for police facilities and equipment impact fees identified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.36. SCHOOL SERVICES 5.7-3: The Proposed Project would generate new students and require additional school facilities in the area. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measure from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measure was included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and is applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 7-8 Ongoing, theThe City of Anaheim will work cooperatively with school districts to identify opportunities for school facilities sites for new schools and school expansions in the Platinum Triangle. (5.9-6) Additional Mitigation 7-9 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the school impact fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union High School District and Anaheim City School District in compliance with Senate Bill 50 (Government Code [GC] Section 65995 as amended). Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-17• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation LIBRARY SERVICES 5.7-4: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local libraries. Potentially significant 7-10 Prior to approval of the first Development Agreement with residential units within the Platinum Triangle following certification of SEIR No. 339, an update to the library facilities fee program included in the Standardized Development Agreement shall be submitted to the City Council for review and consideration to reflect the Proposed Project intensities. Less than significant DAY CARE FACILITIES 5.7-5: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local day care facilities. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable. 5.8 RECREATION 5.8-1: The Proposed Project would increase demands on existing parks and recreational facilities. Potentially significant 8-1 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to seek property acquisition opportunities for parkland in and adjacent to the project area. 8-2 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue to work with developers to seek alternative means of providing recreational amenities. 8-3 Ongoing during project implementation, the City shall continue fostering partnerships with other public entities and private organizations to seek alternative means of providing various types of recreational opportunities. Less than significant 5.8-2: Development of recreational facilities would not have adverse physical effect on the environment. Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not Applicable 5.9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.9-1: Project-related trip generation would impact levels of service for the area roadway system. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The reference number for each measure from the MMP No. 106A is shown in (italics). 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe 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: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. Significant and unavoidable. All arterial roadways and intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service or no worse than No Project conditions provided planned roadway improvements are implemented. However, if these programs are not implemented by the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-18• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property 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, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer 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. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • 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. • 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. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. Event shuttle service will be available for the guests. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. 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. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing agencies with the responsibility to do so, including Caltrans and the City of Orange, the project’s intersection, impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-19• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • 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. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who 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 agreement with all of the project participants. 9-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, Tthe property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. (5.10-3) 9-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-20• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer 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; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. (5.10-5) 9-5 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, Tthe property owner/developer shall 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 adjacent to their property and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. (5.10-6) Additional Mitigation Measures 9-6 Prior to approval of a Development Agreement for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, property owner/developers shall prepare traffic improvement phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Draft Traffic Study Report, Parson Brinckerhoff, August 2010 (Appendix F of this SEIR) shall be designed and constructed. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to implement traffic improvements as identified in the project traffic study to maintain satisfactory levels of service as defined by the City’s General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339, Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-7 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. The improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding, construction and fair-share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. At minimum, fair-share calculations shall include intersection improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-21• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement. The Development Agreement Conditions of Approval shall require the property owner/developer to construct, bond for or enter into a funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, unless alternative funding sources have been identified. 9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange. c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. The City shall work with the City of Orange to amend the JCFA to ensure that fair share fees collected to mitigate arterial and intersection impacts in the City or Orange are mitigated to the extent feasible. 9-9 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, and assuming that a regional transportation agency has not already programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations, property owners/developers and the City will take the following actions in cooperation with Caltrans: a) The traffic study will identify the Project’s proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations and its fair share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in SEIR No. 339 and established in the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines. b) The City shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-22• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 9-10 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of a Building Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in Mitigation Measure 9-9. The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City. 9-11 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall 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 and consistent with the adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, regardless of the level of impacts generated by the project. Transportation Fee Program 9-12 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, Traffic Impact and Improvement Fees, Community Facilities District Fees, and Platinum Triangle Impact 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; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. 9-13 Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, and prior to the approval of the first Development Agreement, if the costs of the identified improvements in this traffic study cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing Community Facilities District (CFD), an update to the CFD or an update to of the existing City’s traffic impact fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. Any updated CFD or City traffic fee program shall include the costs of implementing identified intersection and/or arterial improvements in the City of Orange. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program 9-14 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer 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: • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-23• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-15 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, the property 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, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer 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. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who 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 agreement with all of the project participants. • On-site services. On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a 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. • 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-24• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation during the work shift. • 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. • Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts. • Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • 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. • Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools. • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Participation In the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) 9-16 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. 9-17 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-25• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN.The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 5.9-2: The Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes on Caltrans facilities. Potentially significant Same mitigation measures for Impact 5.9-1. Significant and unavoidable. All Caltrans intersections and freeway mainline segments would operate at an acceptable level of service or no worse than No Project ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-26• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation conditions provided planned roadway improvements are implemented. However, if these programs are not implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project’s freeway ramp and mainline impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. 5.9-3: The Proposed Project would result in the construction of residential uses within close proximity to several heliports. Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Not applicable 5.9-4: Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (sharp curves, etc.) or potentially conflicting uses. Potentially significant 9-16 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, property owners/developers will analyze to determine when the intersection improvements identified under Impact 5.9-4 shall be constructed, subject to the conditions identified in Mitigation Measure 9-6. 9-17 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-27• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9-5: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.9-6: The Proposed Project would promote alternative forms of transportation. Less than significant No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.10-1: Project-generated sewage could be adequately treated by the sewer service provider for the Proposed Project. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-1 The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle Sewer Study. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Benefit Parcels and Development Mitigation (Appendix D of the Platinum Triangle Sewer Study), prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final Building and Zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the project area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.11-5) 10-2 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner/developer shall coordinate with the OCSD to ensure that all improvements and construction schedules are coordinated. (5.11-7) Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-28• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Additional Mitigation 10-3 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit for each development project, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall contact Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regarding sewer capacity. Additionally, if requested by the OCSD, the property owner/developer shall place up to three flow monitoring devices for up to a month to verify capacity and ensure consistency with the OCSD’s modeling results. 10-4 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer spill for below-grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer study for the Platinum Triangle. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when they are above the pipe crown. 10-5 Prior to the approval and ongoing during construction of any street improvement plans within the Platinum Triangle, which encompass area(s) where OCSD will be upsizing truck lines and/or are making other improvements, the City and/or property owner shall coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed at the lateral connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. 10-6 Prior to final design approval, additional analysis shall be performed for each individual project using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific for that project in order to obtain more accurate results of the surcharge levels for final design. 5.10-2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-29• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) 10-8 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide engineering studies, including network analysis, to size the water mains for ultimate development within the project. This includes detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering reviews and approval in determining project water requirements and appropriate water assessment fees. (5.11-2) 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-10 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 334339, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15D of the Water Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Rule 15D shall be amended to include construction of a new well with a minimum 1,500 GPM capacity within The Platinum Triangle. (5.11-4) Additional Mitigation 10-11 Ongoing, the City shall continue to collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, its member agencies, and Orange County Water District to ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecast that water demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.18, as prescribed, to require mandatory conservation measures as authorized by Section 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-30• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. 10-15 Prior to approval of a project that exceeds the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that adequate water supply exists to serve the Proposed Project. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved. 10-16 Prior to issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 339, whichever occurs first, Drawing Nos. W-2523 and W-2524 of Water Rule 15- D shall be revised, updated and amended to include a new 3,000 gallon per minute water well, revised facilities costs and the total Gross Floor Building Area of the Projected Total Development of SEIR No. 339. Prior to issuance of the first building permit or grading permit following certification of SEIR No. 339, whichever occurs first, Rule 15-D shall be amended to include the following improvements. • A transmission main in Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to SR-57. • A transmission main in Douglass Avenue from Katella to the Anaheim Stadium loop. • A transmission main in State College Boulevard from Orangewood south to the City limits. • A transmission main in the Lewis Street Connector. • A new 3,000 gallon per minute water well. 5.10-3: The Proposed Project would result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Potentially Significant The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-17 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the City Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is located within an area served by deficient drainage facilities, as identified in the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-31• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Channel Tributary Area. If the project will increase stormwater flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master plan drainage study for the area or if the project currently discharges to an existing deficient storm drain system or will create a deficiency in an existing storm drain, the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the drainage facilities, as required by the City Engineer to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development based upon the Development Mitigation within Benefit Zones (Appendix E of the Platinum Triangle Drainage Study) of the Master Plan of Storm Drainage for East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel Tributary Area, 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, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, if adopted for the Project Area, as determined by the City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, construction, or a combination thereof. (5.5-3) 5.10-4: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste and comply with related solid waste regulations. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-32• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/ Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division and/or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a 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 all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) 5.10-5: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated electricity demands. Potentially significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from MMP No. 106A The following mitigation measures were included in the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, adopted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, as part of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are indicated in strikeout format. The mitigation reference numbers from MMP No. 106A are shown in (italics). 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air- conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) Less than significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-33• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of ® exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: ƒ New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $15,000 $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. ƒ New Construction – Cash incentives $400 per kW or $0.15 per kWh saved for each measure and up to $200,000 per facility for efficiency that exceed Title 24 requirements. ƒ Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. ƒ Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. ƒ Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. (5.11-12) • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush [gpf] or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of draught-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. (5.11-12) ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-34• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, For any buildings requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for of Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the Cityand Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: (5.11-13) • Relocate Southern California Edison transmission line underground on Katella Avenue from west of the Union Pacific Railroad to Lewis Street (850 feet). • Relocate Southern California Edison communication line underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to east of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • Relocate distribution circuits underground on Katella Avenue from Lewis Street to 700 feet west of State College Boulevard (2,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from Anaheim Way to State College Boulevard (1,500 feet). • Relocation a distribution circuit underground on Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to west of the Santa Ana River (1,600 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Gene Autry Way (950 feet). • Relocate a distribution circuit underground on Douglas Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue (1,000 feet). 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-35• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Additional Mitigation 10-25 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall install their portion of the underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System as determined by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications of Underground Systems. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. The underground electrical service will consist of the following improvements to the current electric facilities: • Two new distribution duct banks on Katella Avenue from Anaheim Way to Lewis Street (800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Katella Avenue from Douglas Road to Howell Avenue (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on State College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue (2,600 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Orangewood Avenue from I-5 to the Santa Ana River (4,800 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from Haster Street to the east side of I-5 (2,500 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Gene Autry Way from I-5 to State College Boulevard (2,500 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Anaheim Way from 700 feet north of Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,400 feet). • A new transmission duct bank on Lewis Street and Santa Cruz Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue (3,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on the east side of the Angel Stadium parking lot from Orangewood Avenue to the SR-57 (2,000 feet). • A new distribution duct bank on Douglas Road from SR-57 to Cerritos Avenue (4,000 feet). 10-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit or grading permit, the property owner/developer shall provide an electrical load analysis to the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). The analysis shall include a load schedule and maximum electrical coincident demand. Should the property owner/developer’s load analysis result in a contributed load forecasted to exceed 20 MVA above the existing 40 MVA capacity of the electrical system currently serving the Platinum Triangle area, the APUD will initiate construction of a new electrical substation within the Platinum Triangle project area. Electrical service fees and other applicable fees for the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-36• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation electrical substation will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations or another financial mechanism approved by the City. 5.10-6: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated natural Gas demands. Potentially Significant 10-27 The City shall coordinate all future street and infrastructure improvements within the Platinum Triangle with other service providers, including Southern California Gas Company and the Orange County Sanitation District so that required infrastructure upgrades maybe constructed concurrently. Less than significant 5.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.11-1: The Proposed Project would generate substantially more greenhouse gas emissions compared to the Adopted Master Land Use Plan and cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. However, the Proposed Project would be consistent statewide and regional greenhouse gas reductions goals. Potentially Significant Applicable Mitigation Measures from Other EIR Sections Below is a list of mitigation measures included in other environmental topical sections of this EIR that also would reduce GHG emissions associated with the project and are consistent with the California Attorney General’s mitigation measures for energy efficiency, renewable energy and storage, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use, transportation and motor vehicle, and agriculture and forestry measures. It should also be noted that the proposed project is a mixed-use infill project that is consistent with the Attorney General’s recommended measures for land use. In addition, several of the mitigation measures incorporate several categories of the California Attorney General’s recommended measures energy efficiency and water efficiency measures are occasionally incorporated in the same mitigation measure). Solid Waste Measures 2-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for Demolition Plans), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans detailing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling and waste reduction measures to be implemented to recover C&D materials. These plans shall include identification of off-site locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site or to an adjacent site, 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 at the project site. (5.2-3) 10-18 Prior to the final building and zoning inspections of each development, the The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Streets and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, and the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans as administered by the City of Anaheim. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include, at its discretion, the following plan components: (5.11-8) Significant and Unavoidable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-37• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. • Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. • Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City or governing agency. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and bailing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and number of trips required for collection • Providing on-site recycling receptacles accessible to the public to encourage recycling for all businesses, employees, and patrons where feasible. • Prohibiting curbside pick-up. • Ensuring hazardous materials disposal complies with federal, state, and city regulations. 10-19 Ongoing during project operations, the The following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer: (5.11-9) • Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials, such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. 10-20 Prior to the approval of each grading plan (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permits (for demolition plans), the The property owner/developer shall submit a Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, and /or Street and Sanitation Division. The plans shall include identification of off-site locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials on-site, sale to a 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 all cannot be reused on the project site. (5.11-10) Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures 2-5 In accordance with the timing required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, but no later than prior to the first final Building and Zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce long-term operational CO, NOX, ROG, and PM10 emissions: (5.2-5) • Traffic lane improvements and signalization as outlined in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Draft Traffic Study Report by Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2010, traffic study and Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) shall be ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-38• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation implemented as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. • The property owner/contractor shall place bus benches and/or shelters as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at locations along any site frontage routes as needed. 9-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, and/or institutional uses, the property owners/developer shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, Tthe 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: (5.10-2) • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips. • Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership. 9-2 Prior to the first Final Building and Zoning inspection for each building with commercial, office, or institutional uses, and ongoing during project operation, the property 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, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner/developer 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. following: (5.10-2) • On-site services such as the food, retail, and other services be provided. • 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. • 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. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commute rail) passes be promoted through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region. • Shuttle Service. A commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project be generated, and a local shuttle program offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. Event shuttle service will be available for the guests. • Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this program, Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-39• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation bicyclists of these options. • Guaranteed Ride Home Program. 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. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Stagger work shifts. • Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. • Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means computer with modem). • 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. • Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. • Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.) • Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling to work. • Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacation, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. • Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips. Every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact who 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 agreement with all of the project participants. 9-17 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-40• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 9-17 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Energy Efficiency 2-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/architect shall submit energy calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the performance approach to the California Energy Efficiency Standards to the Building Department that shows each new structure exceeds the applicable Building and Energy Efficiency Standards by a minimum of 10 percent. Plans shall show the following: a) Energy-efficient roofing systems, such as vegetated or “cool” roofs, that reduce ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-41• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation roof temperatures significantly during the summer and therefore reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Examples of energy efficient building materials and suppliers can be found at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ CoolRoofs or similar websites. b) Cool pavement materials such as lighter-colored pavement materials, porous materials, or permeable or porous pavement, for all roadways and walkways not within the public right-of-way, to minimize the absorption of solar heat and subsequent transfer of heat to its surrounding environment. Examples of cool pavement materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ images/extra/level3_pavingproducts.html or similar websites. c) Energy saving devices that achieve the existing 2008 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, such as use of energy efficient appliances appliances) and use of sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows. d) Electrical vehicle charging stations for all commercial structures encompassing over 50,000 square feet. e) Shady trees strategically located within close proximity to the building structure to reduce heat load and resulting energy usage at residential, commercial, and office buildings. Implementation of energy conservation techniques installation of energy saving devices, construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, utilization of light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark- colored roofing materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) shall be indicated on plans. (5.2-6) 10-21 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each structure will comply with exceed the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations) by a minimum of 10 percent and will consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Resource Efficiency Department Business and Community Programs Division. in order to review Title 24 measures incorporated into the project design including energy efficient designs. This consultation shall take place during project design in order to review Title 24 measures that are incorporated into the project design energy efficient practices efficiency and allow potential systems alternatives such as thermal energy storage air- conditioning, lighting, and building envelope options. Plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed energy efficiencies and systems alternatives. (5.11-11) 10-22 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans implement energy-saving practices that will be implemented with the project in compliance with Title 10 24, which may include the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-42• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation following: • High-efficiency air-conditioning with EMS (computer) control. • Variable Air Volume (VAV) air distribution. • Outside air (100 percent) economizer cycle. • Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads. • Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas. • Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors compressor motors, air- handling units, and fan-coil units). • Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces. • Use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent lamps. • Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps. • Use of Energy Star exit lighting or exit signage. • Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified. • Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots. • Consideration of thermal energy storage air conditioning for spaces or hotel buildings, meeting facilities, theaters, or other intermittent-use spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. • Consideration for participation in Resource Efficiency’s Advantage Services Programs such as: ƒ - New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering fees for up to $15,000 $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. ƒ New Construction – Cash incentives $400 per kW or $0.15 per kWh saved for each measure and up to $200,000 per facility for efficiency that exceed Title 24 requirements. - Energy Sale for New Construction – Cash incentives ($150 300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. - Green Building Program – Offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance. - Thermal Energy Storage Feasibility Study – Cost sharing of up to $5,000 for the feasibility study of TES applied to new facilities. (5.11-12) • Use of high efficiency toilets (1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less). • Use of zero to low water use urinals (0.0 gpf to 0.25 gpf). • Use of weather-based irrigation controllers for outdoor irrigation. • Use of drought-tolerant and native plants in outdoor landscaping. 10-24 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the The property owner/developer shall submit plans for review and approval which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with exceed the State Energy Conservation Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code) by a minimum of 10 percent. (5.11-14) ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-43• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Water Conservation and Efficiency 10-7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881)Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Among the measures to be implemented with the project are the following: • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible; • Use of vacuums and other equipment to reduce the use of water for wash down of exterior areas; • Low-flow fittings, fixtures and equipment including low flush toilets and urinals; • Use of self-closing valves for drinking fountains; • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors; • Infrared sensors on sinks, toilets and urinals; • Low-flow shower heads in hotels; • Infrared sensors on drinking fountains; • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night, when evaporation rates are lowest; • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water using appliances; • Cooling tower recirculating system; • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; • Use of waterway recirculation systems; • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation; and • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. In conjunction with submittal of landscape and building plans, the applicant shall identify which of these measures have been incorporated into the plans. (5.11-1) 10-9 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water Conservation Measures) (5.11-3) 10-12 Prior to issuance of a building permit, submitted landscape plans for all residential, office and commercial landscaping shall demonstrate the use of drought tolerant plant materials pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Efficiency of Landscape Species” by the U.C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. 10-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center SEIR No. 339 Response to Comments Page 4-44• October 2010 City of Anaheim Table 1-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 10-14 Prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-45 Figure 3-5 in the DSEIR has been revised as shown on the following page. Pages 5.3-8 through 5.3-9, Mitigation Measure 3-2 in the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 3-2 Prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, coverage for the project must be obtained by electronically submitting permit registration documents to the State or obtaining coverage via current general construction permit prescribed method by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and Chapter 7 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area that address potential impacts to surface waters. (5.5-2) At least 90 days prior to the initiation of grading activities, for projects greater than one acre, an NOI shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the property owner/developer pursuant to State and Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As part of the NOI, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared. The property owner/developer shall also prepare and submit to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the City’s municipal NPDES requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural BMPs that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the Project Area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Project Area. Long-term measures could include, but may not be limited to, street sweeping, trash collection, proper materials storage, designated wash areas connected to sanitary sewers, filter and grease traps, and clarifiers for surface parking areas. The BMPs selected shall be consistent with the Water Quality Technical Report set forth in for the Proposed Project (Appendix G) of SEIR No. 332. (5.5-2) Figure 5.7-2 in the DSEIR has been revised as shown on the following page. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-46 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-47 Insert Figure 3-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-48 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-49 Insert Figure 5.7-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-50 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-51 Minor corrections to the totals in Table 5.6.5 of the DSEIR have been made as follows: Table 5.6-5 Affordable Housing Summary Project Name Very Low Low Moderate Total Affordable Total Market Grand Total Rental Projects: Project Completed The Vineyard 33 26 1 60 0 60 Monarch Pointe 50 12 1 63 0 63 CIM Projects (moderately priced) 0 0 277 277 0 277 Elm Street Commons 36 15 1 52 0 52 Broadway Village 34 11 1 46 0 46 Diamond Street 24 0 1 25 0 25 Sub Total 177 64 282 523 0 523 Rental Projects: Developer Selected/Under Construction Pradera Apartments (CHOC) 101 43 2 146 0 146 Greenleaf 16 3 1 20 0 20 Arbor View Apartments 34 11 1 46 0 46 Integrity House 48 0 1 49 0 49 Sub Total 199 57 5 261 0 261 Rental Projects: Project Underway – Signed Agreements Projects with Signed Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENA) or in Negotiations Cherry Orchard 35 9 1 45 Manchester & Orangewood 85 32 2 119 0 119 Sub Total 120 41 3 164 0 164 Rental Projects: New Construction – Agency-Owned Parcels South Street 54 54 1 93 0 93 Colony Park Apartments 50 50 300 400 0 400 Anaheim/Midway (Matrix) 38 33 1 72 0 72 CIM – Parcel C 0 0 80 80 0 80 Reel Lumber Site 15 15 1 31 0 31 Lemon/Santa Ana 10 9 1 20 0 20 Midway/Palm 7 6 1 14 0 14 Sub Total 203 122 385 710 0 710 For-Sale Projects: Underway Colony Park I/II 1 42 33 76 194 270 Harbor Lofts 0 14 20 34 95 129 Sub Total 1 56 53 110 289 399 For-Sale Projects: Pending Colony Park III 0 46 0 46 136 182 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel B 0 0 13 13 39 52 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel C 0 9 0 9 27 36 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel F 0 2 0 2 12 14 Brookfield Anaheim Blvd/Parcel G 0 1 0 1 8 9 212 S. Beach 0 0 0 0 36 36 Melrose/Santa Ana 0 4 0 4 0 4 2415 Manchester 0 3 5 8 13 21 Sub Total 0 65 18 83 271 354 Rental Rehabilitation Projects Colette’s Children’s Home 4 0 0 0 0 4 Casa Del Sol 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sub Total 8 0 0 0 0 8 Grand Total 708 405 746 1,859 560 2,419 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-52 Page 5.9-6 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Transit Trip Reduction Transit trip reductions were applied to land use data in select TAZs to account for future transit activity associated with the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) project and increased transit accessibility throughout the Platinum Triangle. Metrolink and Amtrak have daily service at the existing Metrolink/Amtrak Station, located within the Stadium District. This station is proposed to be relocated to the ARTIC District as part of the ARTIC project. Metrolink service is anticipated to expand to more frequent headways throughout the day in the coming years under the Metrolink Service Expansion Program. In addition, the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) has been approved on State College Boulevard with a stop at ARTIC. The State College Boulevard line will be one of the first three BRT lines deployed by OCTA. A systemwide transit study is currently underway that will review service options for potential implementation in the future. This study is expected to conclude in June 2011. and is tentatively scheduled for implementation in late 2010. Additional routes have been proposed for future approval, including a line on Katella Avenue. In addition to these transit services, the Platinum Triangle is also served by Anaheim Resort Transit and OCTA local bus lines. The transit reduction methodology applied to the Proposed Project is outlined in Appendix B of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Pages 5.9-18 through 5.9-19, Table 5.9-8 of the DSEIR has been updated as follows: A-15** Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 32,740 6D 56,300 0.58 A A-61** Katella Ave SR-57 Freeway Main Street 29,610 6D 56,300 0.53 A Page 5.9-53, Table 5.9-19 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: I-102 The City Drive / Garden Grove Boulevard Orange 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.69 B 0.89 D Page 5.9-59, Table 5.9-20 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 51,570 6D 59,115 0.87 D Page 5.9-70, Table 5.9-23 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.87 D No mitigation recommended Page 5.9-70 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 33) Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-62) 33) Lewis Street from Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue/(A-65) 34) Manchester Avenue from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue/(A-72) 35) Orangewood Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Haster Street/(A-74) 36) Orangewood Avenue from State College Boulevard to Rampart Street/(A-77) 37) Orangewood Avenue from Rampart Street to SR-57 Freeway/(A-78) 38) Phoenix Club Drive from Honda Center to Ball Road/(A-81) 39) Rampart Street from Chapman Avenue to Orangewood Avenue /(A-82) ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-53 40) State College Boulevard from Katella Avenue to Howell Avenue/(A-87) 41) Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street (City of Orange segment)/(A-91) With this requested change, Katella Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street is no longer forecasted to be deficient. As a result, all discussions regarding mitigation for this segment have been removed. Per your request, Table 5.9-23 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 0.92 E No mitigation recommended Page 5.9-70 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Table 5.9-24 compares the deficient arterial segments in the City of Orange under existing, No Project, and With Project conditions. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (A-15, referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue (A-62) identified in Table 5.9-24 were was identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these this segments through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. Therefore, no specific road improvements are proposed for these two arterial segments. Page 5.9-71, Table 5.9-24 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street/Batavia Street 30,280 0.54 A 47,690 0.85 D 51,570 0.92 E Yes Page 5.9-121, Table 5.9-37 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue (between Main Street and Batavia Street) Orange Project No mitigation Override Page 5.9-126 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street— No mitigation measures are recommended. 2019) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street—Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial. Pages 6-3 and 6-4 of the traffic study, Appendix F of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: The following six five arterial segments within the City of Orange are identified as deficient and are located within corridors that are built out and have right-of-way constraints include existing businesses, extensive landscaping, and in the case of Struck Avenue, several homes. The City of Orange has no plans to widen the identified segments within the foreseeable future but should the City of Orange decide to implement improvements along these corridors, the City of Anaheim will need to contribute a fair-share. The City of Anaheim will continue to work with the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-54 City of Orange to develop the most appropriate strategy toward improving the locations impacted by the Proposed Project. 15) Arterial Segment A-15: Ball Road from SR-57 Freeway to Main Street 16) Arterial Segment A-27: Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 17) Arterial Segment A-28: Collins Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street 18) Arterial Segment A-32: Eckhoff Street to Orangewood Avenue to Collins Avenue 19) Arterial Segment A-62: Katella Avenue from Main Street to Batavia Street 2019) Arterial Segment A-91: Struck Avenue from Katella Avenue to Main Street Page 5.9-71, Table 5.9-24 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street/Batavia Street 30,280 0.54 A 47,690 0.85 D 51,570 0.87 D Yes Page 5.9-71 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: For arterial segment improvements within the City of Orange, the facilities identified in Table 5.9-25 would require improvements to ensure acceptable operations. Future forecasts for the arterial segments in Orange are generally consistent with the forecast volumes presented by the City of Orange in their General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Revised June 2009). As such, the segments of Ball Road (referred to as Taft Avenue in the Orange analysis) and Katella Avenue identified in Table 5.9-25 were was identified as deficient in the Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis with no specific capacity enhancing mitigation proposed. Rather, the City of Orange recommended monitoring these this segment through peak hour intersection performance to ensure acceptable peak hour operations. For the segment of Collins Avenue between Batavia Street and Glassell Street, improvements to a four-lane divided facility were recommended. The segments of Eckhoff Street and Struck Avenue were not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. Collins Avenue from Main Street to Batavia was also not found to be deficient in the Orange General Plan Update. Page 5.9-72, Table 5.9-25 of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Table 5.9-25 Potential Arterial Segment Mitigation and Fair-Share for Orange Facilities ID Arterial From To With Project ADT V-C Daily LOS Proposed Mitigation Strategy Mit V/C Mit LOS Fair- Share A-15 Ball Road SR-57 Freeway Main Street 60,250 1.07 F No mitigation recommended* 4.2% A-27 Collins Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 23,650 0.99 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.63 B 3.0% A-28 Collins Avenue Batavia Street Glassell Street 21,820 0.91 E Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.58 A 6.5% A-32 Eckhoff Street Orangewood Avenue Collins Avenue 27,760 1.16 F Upgrade to 4-lane divided arterial 0.74 C 2.5% A-62 Katella Avenue Main Street Batavia Street 51,570 0.92 E No mitigation recommended* 18.2% A-91 Struck Avenue Katella Avenue Main Street 15,500 1.29 F Upgrade to 4-lane undivided arterial 0.65 B 15.9% * For the abovementioned segments, Orange determined that intersection improvements along Katella and Taft (proposed in the General Plan EIR as mitigation) would likely improve the arterial segment LOS to acceptable levels. As such, the City proposed monitoring of the arterial segments to ensure that the intersection improvements result in the expected arterial LOS improvement. If widening were needed in the future (as determined by ongoing monitoring efforts) projects would need to be undertaken as a coordinated effort between Anaheim and Orange, and would be subject to fair share contributions from the Platinum Triangle project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-55 Mitigation Measure 9-8 on Page 5.9-113, Section 5.9.7, Mitigation Measures, of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 9-8 In conjunction with the preparation of any traffic improvement phasing analyses as required in Mitigation Measure 9-6, the following actions shall be taken in cooperation with the City of Orange: a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the project on facilities within the City of Orange. The fair-share percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts shall be calculated in this analysis. b) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project’s fair-share responsibility in cooperation with the City of Orange. c) The Proposed Project shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair-share cost prior to issuance of a building permit. The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities. The City shall work with the City of Orange to amend the JCFA to ensure that fair share fees collected to mitigate arterial and intersection impacts in the City or Orange are mitigated to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 9-13 on Page 5.9-114, Section 5.9.7, Mitigation Measures, of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 9-13 Subsequent to the certification of the FEIR, and prior to the approval of the first Development Agreement, if the costs of the identified improvements in this traffic study cannot be covered by the total funding allocation under the existing Community Facilities District (CFD), an update to the CFD or an update to of the existing City’s traffic impact fee program or other fee programs shall be developed by the City of Anaheim to ensure completion of the recommended improvements. Any updated CFD or City traffic fee program shall include the costs of implementing identified intersection and/or arterial improvements in the City of Orange. Mitigation Measures 9-16 and 9-17 on Pages 5.9-116 and 5.9-117 have been deleted since they were largely duplicative of Mitigation Measures 9-1 and 9-2. Therefore, Section 5.9.7, Mitigation Measures, of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: Participation In the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) 9-9 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner/developer shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. 9-10 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection, for each building with office and/or commercial uses, the property owner/developer shall submit proof to the Public Works, Transit Planning Division that the property owner/developer has entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for the provision of a transit shuttle service between the project, the existing Metrolink Station and future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as well as major activity centers in between. The agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder, Orange County, California. The form of ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-56 the agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. The agreement shall provide for the following: a. A shuttle route plan, approved by the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division and ATN, shall be attached and incorporated into the agreement. The plan shall include co-location of stops with Orange County Transportation Authority bus stop locations and other properties in the Platinum Triangle where feasible and determined appropriate by the Public Works Transit Planning Division and ATN. The property owner/developer shall pay all costs associated with the preparation of the shuttle route plan. b. The property owner/developer shall provide the full cost associated with providing the shuttle, including, but not limited to, purchasing the shuttle vehicle and all costs associated with operating and marketing the shuttle route. c. The agreement shall provide a mechanism for the property owner/developer to request fair-share participation from other major activity centers to be served by this shuttle route. The mechanism shall be subject to the approval of the ATN. d. The agreement shall set forth a schedule for commencement of operation of the shuttle service. e. The agreement shall provide that the property owner/developer's obligations to fund the shuttle service may be cancelled only upon prior written approval from the Public Works Department, Transit Planning Division's once a new transit service has taken its place. f. That to the extent permitted by law the terms of this agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits of this agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. Pages 5.10-1 through 5.10-2, Section 5.10.1, Environmental Setting, of the DSEIR has been revised as follows: 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Sewer Wastewater Treatment and Collection The City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system serves the project vicinity and is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). , District 2 The entire OCSD system The OCSD services area comprises encompasses 479 480 square miles of northern and central Orange County. OCSD operates the third largest sewer system on the west coast, consisting of over 582 579 miles of sewer lines, 15 offsite pumping station, two regional wastewater treatment plants, and an ocean disposal system. Sewer Wastewater flows by gravity from the City sewer system is conveyed to the county OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers, and then to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The major OCSD sanitary sewers serving the Platinum Triangle are the Newhope-Placentia Trunk (State College Boulevard Avenue), the Olive Subtrunk, the Orangewood Diversion Sewer, and the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line. • Newhope-Placentia/Orangewood Basin. The Newhope-Placentia Trunk ranges in diameter from 33 to 42 inches is 39 inches in diameter and flows south down State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue. At Orangewood Avenue, the Newhope-Placentia Trunk turns to the west past the western boundary of the stadium to Lewis Street, then south to Lewis Street through the City of Orange to the County SARI. The properties along Orangewood Avenue are tributary to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk via eight-inch City sewers in and along the street. The northern limit of this basin is generally Gene Autry Way (west of State College Boulevard) and in back the backside of the businesses along Orangewood Avenue. The eastern limit is the Santa Ana River, the southern limit is the City boundary, and the western limit is Interstate 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Page 4-57 • Olive Basin. The Olive Subtrunk is located along Katella Avenue at the northeastern end of the Platinum Triangle area and continues in a westerly direction through Howell Avenue to connect to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk at State College Boulevard. The size of the line within that reach ranges from 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The Olive Subtrunk also collects sewage from areas east of the Santa Ana River. All flows east of the Santa Ana River can be diverted to the SARI. • Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The old county Newhope-Placentia Trunk is located at the north end of the Platinum Triangle area and flows south within State College Boulevard from the Edison Corridor to Orangewood Avenue, then east along Orangewood Avenue to the county SARI. The size of the line within this reach ranges from 36 to 42 inches in diameter. Flows north of the State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue intersection (in the old alignment of the Newhope-Placentia line) can be diverted easterly by the OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer. The OCSD Orangewood Diversion Sewer was built to alleviate a deficiency in the Newhope- Placentia Trunk identified by OCSD in their 1991 Master Plan. Currently, there is a diversion structure that allows sewage wastewater to flow either east to the SARI line down Orangewood Avenue or west down Orangewood Avenue from past State College Boulevard to Lewis Street where the Newhope/Placentia trunk turns south. • Santa Ana River Interceptor. The SARI line, a regional brine line, is designed to convey 30 million gallons per day (mgd) of nonreclaimable sewer wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2. the ocean for disposal, after treatment. The nonreclaimable wastewater consists of desalter concentrate, and industrial wastewater, and domestic wastewater. Domestic wastewater is also received on a temporary basis. OCSD maintains operates two wastewater treatment plants within Orange County: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in Fountain Valley; and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. OCSD plans to upgrade the level of wastewater treatment at both of its treatment plants to meet secondary treatment standards for the projected 2020 effluent flow of 240 to 320 mgd. The effluent discharge to the ocean is a blend of advanced primary and secondary treated wastewater as specified in the OCSD’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, about four miles northeast of the ocean. The plant receives sewage wastewater from six major sewer pipes and provides advanced primary and secondary treatment. Secondary effluent is either blended with advanced primary effluent and routed to the ocean disposal system, or is sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for further treatment and distribution for reclaimed water uses. Plant No. 2 is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, about 1,500 feet from the ocean. The plant receives sewage wastewater from five major sewer pipes, and all of the effluent from the plant is discharged to the ocean outfall disposal system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Revisions to the Draft SEIR The Planning Center October 2010 Page 4-58 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Appendix A. Affordable Housing Information ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Appendix B. Revised Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Appendix C. Supplemental Traffic Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim Response to Comments Appendix D. Water Supply Memo ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices The Planning Center October 2010 This page intentionally left blank.